Re: 2.2.13-pre6

Jens Axboe (axboe@image.dk)
Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:57:36 +0200

On Sat, Sep 11 1999, Steven N. Hirsch wrote:
> > The log doesn't tell you what ioctl it failed? I think that this
> > hunk of the patch might be responsible, could you try reversing
> > it and giving it a second go?
>
> I assumed (perhaps naively) that 'Verify' was the name of an ioctl. But,
> no, it doesn't say any more than what I posted previously.

Hmm, strange.

> > @@ -875,7 +883,7 @@
> >
> > case CDROM_DRIVE_STATUS: {
> > cdinfo(CD_DO_IOCTL, "entering CDROM_DRIVE_STATUS\n");
> > - if (!(cdo->capability & CDC_DRIVE_STATUS))
> > + if (!CDROM_CAN(CDC_DRIVE_STATUS))
> > return -ENOSYS;
> > if ((arg == CDSL_CURRENT) || (arg == CDSL_NONE))
> > return cdo->drive_status(cdi, arg);
>
>
> Yup. Reverting the patch above fixed the problem.

Good. Although I can't possibly see why this would happen.
The CDROM_CAN() macro is a similar construct, but includes the
driver maskable capabilities as well. And ide-cd does not
mask out CDC_DRIVE_STATUS in any way.

Alan, could you just reverse this part for now?

> Perhaps the rest of the trace will provide a clue? BTW, why is the door
> being unlocked so frequently? I thought it needed to stay locked until
> all references were released.

That's (partly) a flaw. I just haven't looked into doing the
locking better right now.

-- 
*  Jens Axboe <axboe@image.dk>
*  Linux CD-ROM Maintainer
*  http://www.kernel.dk


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