Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:41:25 +0900 | From | Tejun <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] libata queue updated |
| |
Hello, Ingo.
Ingo Oeser wrote: > Hi Tejun, > > On Tuesday 31 January 2006 01:04, Tejun wrote: > >>Ingo Oeser wrote: >> >>>What about putting the information directly into "ap->device[INDEX].class" >>>in the sole caller (ata_drive_probe_reset) so far? >>> >> >>Not altering ->class directly in lldd driver is one major point of this >>whole patchset such that higher level driving logic has a say on whether >>a device is online or not, not the low level driver. Primarily this is >>useful for sharing low-level codes with hot plugging / EH but it's also >>possible to retry some of the operations during probing in limited cases. > > > Ok, with this argument, I finally get it. Now I know why you do it this > way. You let the lld driver suggest a class for it's devices and verify > these suggestions by high level code. > > The only way to get to this classification data is by resetting the ATA > device. > > It might be technically possible to set ->class directly and > fix it up in high level logic, as needed.
Yeap, that's right. I actually considered that too but it was kind of messy that way - storing the current value, invoke callbacks, restoring values if something doesn't look right. Just using temporary variable is much more straight-forward, it seemed.
> > Your explicit design decision was NOT to do this but to put this > suggestions from low level driver into a temporary on stack structure > from the higher level API. > > And since the maintainer is happy already, I couldn't care less. > > Thanks for your patience :-)
Great that we could reach an agreement.
Thanks. :-)
-- tejun - 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/
| |