Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:14:18 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1169741658.3593.98.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070125150905.652f9ce2@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 15:09 +0000, Alan wrote:
> 
> diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude linux.vanilla-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
> --- linux.vanilla-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c       2007-01-22 16:26:50.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c       2007-01-24 17:31:40.000000000 +0000
> @@ -827,7 +827,8 @@
>   */
>  void ata_bmdma_post_internal_cmd(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
>  {
> -       ata_bmdma_stop(qc);
> +       if (qc->ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr)
> +               ata_bmdma_stop(qc);
>  }

But what if the bmdma_addr _is_ zero? Please, let's not allow the "zero
is not a valid number" braindamage to spread any further than the IRQ
setup it's already broken.

All the world is not a PeeCee.

-- 
dwmw2