Re: [PATCH] fix rq->flags use in ide-tape.c

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On Wednesday 05 of November 2003 09:40, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04 2003, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > ChangeSet 1.1413, 2003/11/04 08:01:30-08:00,
> > B.Zolnierkiewicz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 	[PATCH] fix rq->flags use in ide-tape.c
> >
> > 	Noticed by Stuart_Hayes@xxxxxxxx:
>
> Guys, this is _way_ ugly. We definitely dont need more crap in ->flags
> for private driver use, stuff them somewhere else in the rq. rq->cmd[0]
> usage would be a whole lot better. This patch should never have been
> merged. If each and every driver needs 5 private bits in ->flags,
> well...

Yeah, it is ugly.  Using rq->cmd is also ugly as it hides the problem in
ide-tape.c, but if you prefer this way I can clean it up.  I just wanted
minimal changes to ide-tape.c to make it working.

> Was this even posted on linux-kernel for review?

Yes.

--bartlomiej

> > @@ -218,6 +223,11 @@
> >  #define REQ_PM_SUSPEND	(1 << __REQ_PM_SUSPEND)
> >  #define REQ_PM_RESUME	(1 << __REQ_PM_RESUME)
> >  #define REQ_PM_SHUTDOWN	(1 << __REQ_PM_SHUTDOWN)
> > +#define REQ_IDETAPE_PC1 (1 << __REQ_IDETAPE_PC1)
> > +#define REQ_IDETAPE_PC2 (1 << __REQ_IDETAPE_PC2)
> > +#define REQ_IDETAPE_READ	(1 << __REQ_IDETAPE_READ)
> > +#define REQ_IDETAPE_WRITE	(1 << __REQ_IDETAPE_WRITE)
> > +#define REQ_IDETAPE_READ_BUFFER	(1 << __REQ_IDETAPE_READ_BUFFER)

-
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/