On 7/6/05, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > drive->hwif check is redundant, please remove it
>
> It's not. My first version didn't have it but it still crashed.
> It's what actually prevents the crash.
> I also don't know why, but it's true.
very weird as HWIF(drive) == drive->hwif:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> - q = blk_init_queue_node(do_ide_request, &ide_lock,
> - pcibus_to_node(drive->hwif->pci_dev->bus));
> + int node = 0; /* Should be -1 */
Why is this not -1?
> + int node = 0;
> + if (hwif->drive
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:34:28AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > - q = blk_init_queue_node(do_ide_request, &ide_lock,
> > > - pcibus_to_node(drive->hwif->pci_dev->bus));
> > > + i
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:34:28AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > - q = blk_init_queue_node(do_ide_request, &ide_lock,
> > - pcibus_to_node(drive->hwif->pci_dev->bus));
> > + int node = 0; /* Should be -1 */
>
> Why is t
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:35:11 +0200
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/6/05, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > drive->hwif check is redundant, please remove it
> >
> > It's not. My first version didn't have it but it still crashed.
> > It's what actually prevents
> drive->hwif check is redundant, please remove it
It's not. My first version didn't have it but it still crashed.
It's what actually prevents the crash.
I also don't know why, but it's true.
The machine had four IDE controllers BTW (on board an an external Promise
card)
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe f
On 7/6/05, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Without this patch a dual Xeon EM64T machine would oops on boot
> because the hwif pointer here was NULL. I also added a check for
> pci_dev because it's doubtful that all IDE devices have pci_devs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECT
7 matches
Mail list logo
