On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:40:56PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > Is > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=1132682+0+current/cvs-all > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/ata/ata-isa.c.diff?r1=1.4.2.2&r2=1.4.2.3 > > not the commit that is needed ?
Yes, as I said it has already been fixed. It was that commit I was referring to. No further fix is needed as far as I can tell. > > ---Mike > > At 08:23 PM 01/10/2003, Erik Trulsson wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:58:10AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> On 2003-Sep-29 18:09:05 +0200, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > >> >On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:19:05AM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote: > >> >> Not all FTP sites have the first release candidate, but it is at least > >> >> available from ftp.freebsd.org. Please download and install this > >> >> candidate and help us find bugs BEFORE we call it 4.9-RELEASE. > >> > > >> ><sarcasm> > >> >You mean apart from the minor bug that non-pci kernels using ata won't > >even > >> >compile, and hasn't worked for the last three weeks or so? > >> ></sarcasm> > >> > > >> >See > >> > > >> >http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=44649+0+archive/2003/freeb > >sd-stable/20030928.freebsd-stable > >> > > >> >or > >> > > >> >http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=816008+0+archive/2003/cvs- > >all/20030921.cvs-all > >> > > >> >for details and a patch. > >> > >> Whilst both Erik and I independently came up with the same patch, upon > >> reflection, I'm not sure that this is the correct patch. None of the > >> callers to ata_dmastart() check for a return value and therefore this > >> probably should be a void function - so the code in ata-isa.c is > >> correct and the remaining declaration and definitions are incorrect. > > > >The "real" version of ata_dmastart() found in ata-dma.c does return > >different values for different situations, so for compatibility that > >function would also need to be modified, which I am not sure is a good > >idea. > >You are correct in that the return value is currently not checked by > >the callers to ata_dmastart, but perhaps it should be? > >I believe the return value probably should be kept, in case some future > >caller wants to check how the call succeeded, but for an authoritative > >answer you would have to ask one of the ATA-experts. > > > >Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The code compiles with the patch, > >and a return value that is ignored is quite harmless, so any changes > >should wait until after 4.9-RELEASE at least. > > > >> > >> In either case, I would request that this be fixed before 4.9-RELEASE. > > > >It has already been fixed. The commit to fix it was made by luoqi about > >20 hours ago. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"