Re: The survival of ide-scsi in 2.6.x [PATCH 2/3]

[Jens Axboe]

On Sat, Jan 31 2004, Willem Riede wrote:
> On 2004.01.30 17:56, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > 
> > Can you split your patch and drop cosmetic changes?
> 
> Changes in this second patch:
> - some whitespace changes to improve readability
> - use consistent printk priorities
> 
> Regards, Willem Riede.
> 
> --- p1/drivers/scsi/ide-scsi.c	2004-01-31 15:37:31.000000000 -0500
> +++ p2/drivers/scsi/ide-scsi.c	2004-01-31 15:57:08.000000000 -0500
> @@ -54,7 +54,9 @@
>  #include "hosts.h"
>  #include <scsi/sg.h>
>  
> -#define IDESCSI_DEBUG_LOG		0
> +#define IDESCSI_DEBUG_LOG	0
> +#define IDESCSI_DEBUG		KERN_NOTICE
> +#define IDESCSI_LOG		KERN_INFO

Hmm

> @@ -309,23 +311,25 @@
>  
>  static int idescsi_end_request (ide_drive_t *drive, int uptodate, int nrsecs)
>  {
> -	idescsi_scsi_t *scsi = drive_to_idescsi(drive);
> -	struct request *rq = HWGROUP(drive)->rq;
> -	idescsi_pc_t *pc = (idescsi_pc_t *) rq->special;
> -	int log = test_bit(IDESCSI_LOG_CMD, &scsi->log);
> +	idescsi_scsi_t   *scsi = drive_to_idescsi(drive);
> +	struct request   *rq  = HWGROUP(drive)->rq;
> +	idescsi_pc_t     *pc  = (idescsi_pc_t *) rq->special;
> +	int               log = test_bit(IDESCSI_LOG_CMD, &scsi->log);
>  	struct Scsi_Host *host;
> -	u8 *scsi_buf;
> -	unsigned long flags;
> +	u8               *scsi_buf;
> +	unsigned long     flags;

What is the point of this? Forget any (bogus) white space and style
"cleanups", it's totally irrelevant. Produce the patches fixing some
issues, cleanups are really not appropriate.

I hope your 3rd patch will be just that. Make sure it patch against
vanilla tree, not the two just sent.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/