Re: Possibly wrong BIO usage in ide_multwrite

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On Monday 05 of January 2004 05:03, Christophe Saout wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> here another experiment.
>
> I have started moving the code over to using the cbio mechanism. I
> have only touched ide-disk.c though, I'm not sure about ide-taskfile.c.

Patch looks nice but I wonder if it is worth doing
(this code should die ASAP).

> The modifications work here with and without multmode and with all kinds
> of bios. Haven't been able to test error conditions since I don't have
> broken hardware. ;-)

Hehe... you can try to break it ;-).

> I also didn't touch ide-taskfile.c which has most probably also been
> broken by the ide_map_buffer change. And I stumbled across the code

Yep.

> calling end_request with a null sector count, ide_end_request will then
> take hard_nr_sectors which will end the whole request even if only one
> bio was finished, huh? Am I missing something here?

No, it is used mainly to fail requests.

This hack should be later removed with care
(there is some strange comment about locking).

> And when is bio == NULL in ide_map_buffer? Where can this happen?

In taskfile code - special requests are not bio baked (taskfile ioctl).

--bart

-
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/