On 11/13/2012 02:53 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:51:55PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> void ata_acpi_unbind(struct ata_device *dev)
>> {
>> + if (zpodd_dev_enabled(dev))
>> + zpodd_deinit(dev);
>
> Maybe zpodd_exit() instead?
OK.
>
>> +void zpodd_init(struct ata_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + struct zpodd *zpodd;
>> +
>> + if (dev->private_data)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (!device_can_poweroff(dev))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if ((ret = check_loading_mechanism(dev)) == -ENODEV)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + zpodd = kzalloc(sizeof(struct zpodd), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!zpodd)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (ret)
>> + zpodd->drawer = true;
>> + else
>> + zpodd->slot = true;
>> +
>> + zpodd->dev = dev;
>> + dev->private_data = zpodd;
>
> I don't think you're supposed to use dev->private_data from libata
> core layer. Just add a new field. Nobody cares about adding 8 more
> bytes to struct ata_device and spending 8 more bytes is way better
> than muddying the ownership of ->private_data.
OK.
And just out of curiosity, who's supposed to use device's private_data?
I didn't find any user for ata_device's private_data in libata.
>
>> +/* libata-zpodd.c */
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SATA_ZPODD
>> +void zpodd_init(struct ata_device *dev);
>> +void zpodd_deinit(struct ata_device *dev);
>> +static inline bool zpodd_dev_enabled(struct ata_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + if (dev->flags & ATA_DFLAG_DA && dev->private_data)
>> + return true;
>> + else
>> + return false;
>> +}
>
> And this gets completely wrong. What if the device supports DA and
> low level driver makes use of ->private_data?
I didn't find any user of ata_device's private_data, so I used it for
ZPODD. But if this is dangerous, I'll use a new field.
Thanks,
Aaron
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
