Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:37:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:37:21 -0400 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:57861 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:37:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3D54279B.2050500@evision.ag> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:35:39 +0200 From: Marcin Dalecki Reply-To: martin@dalecki.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020724 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, pl, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens Axboe CC: martin@dalecki.de, Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.30 IDE 115 References: <3D53AE13.7060907@evision.ag> <20020809134839.GO2243@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1749 Lines: 45 Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > >>- Fix small typo introduced in 113, which prevented CD-ROMs from >> working altogether. > > > Have you fixed the sense reporting issue I told you about months ago? Well at least ide-116 will start to unify the corresponding code. But please don't expecty anything "revolutionary" yet... Just for example using GPCMD_ constants throughout the code and a unified error dissection function. One of the issues involved is rq->buffer in ide-floppy versus rq->special in ide-cd.c >>- Eliminate block_ioctl(). This code can't be shared in the way >> proposed by this file. We will port it to the proper >> blk_insert_request() soon. This will eliminate the _elv_add_request() >> "layering violation". > > > What are you talking about? Hmm, so apparently you where not the one who "inventid" it? Anyway I talk about the block_ioctl.c file, which was supposed to contain the two eject ioctl functions for "generic" packet code. But since we don't have any kind of "generic" packet commands this didn't make much sense. It was inventing a function called blk_do_rq(), which was using elv_add_request(). You called this not a long time ago a "layering violation" yourself. And I simply intend to replace it in one of the forthcomming patches with the recently inventid blk_insert_request() function. Oh, I realize I didn't express myself properly. I certinaly don't intend to eliminate elv_add_request() itself any time soon ;-). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/