Re: [patch 3/6] ide: always kill the whole request on error

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On Wednesday 24 June 2009 08:49:48 David Miller wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:49:32 +0200
> 
> > On Wednesday 24 June 2009 01:19:04 David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:27:27 +0200
> >> 
> >> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Subject: [PATCH] ide: always kill the whole request on error
> >> > 
> >> > * Use blk_rq_bytes() instead of obsolete ide_rq_bytes() in ide_kill_rq()
> >> >   and ide_floppy_do_request() for failed requests.
> >> >   [ bugfix part ]
> >> > 
> >> > * Use blk_rq_bytes() instead of obsolete ide_rq_bytes() in ide_do_devset()
> >> >   and ide_complete_drive_reset().  Then remove ide_rq_bytes().
> >> >   [ cleanup part ]
> >> > 
> >> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > 'cleanup part' tested, limited testing with 'bugfix part'
> >> > (using simulated failures of disk fs requests)
> >> 
> >> Considering this alongsize patch #2, it even more begs the
> >> question as to why special requests on floppy and tape were
> >> handled differently.  And that 'error <= 0' test, strange.
> > 
> > TBH I fail to see how it relates to changes present in _this_ patch
> > as no change in _this_ patch affects special tape/floppy requests..
> 
> The previous patch is a prerequesite for this one.  So we should
> discuss them as a whole.  Because if we can't remove the "ide/floppy
> RQ error 0 instead of -EIO" bit, then we don't make these further
> consolidations either.

Untrue, we can easily redo the patch #3 to not be dependent on patch #2.

Do you prefer such version instead?
--
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/