On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 15:09 +0000, Alan wrote:
quoted text >
> 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
-
unsubscribe notice 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/ Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA c ... , David Woodhouse , (Thu Jan 25, 9:14 am)
