Hello, Hannes. Sorry about the delay.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:55:08AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > ata_dev_classify() just uses the 'lbah' and 'lbam' > fields from the taskfile, so we can as well use those > as arguments and rip out the custom code from sas_ata. I wonder whether it'd easier to just make sas code pass in ata_taskfile instead? The interface which takes three consecutive u8's is kinda error-prone. > --- a/drivers/scsi/aic94xx/aic94xx_task.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/aic94xx/aic94xx_task.c > @@ -373,10 +373,10 @@ static int asd_build_ata_ascb(struct asd_ascb *ascb, > struct sas_task *task, > > if (unlikely(task->ata_task.device_control_reg_update)) > scb->header.opcode = CONTROL_ATA_DEV; > - else if (dev->sata_dev.command_set == ATA_COMMAND_SET) > - scb->header.opcode = INITIATE_ATA_TASK; > - else > + else if (dev->sata_dev.class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) > scb->header.opcode = INITIATE_ATAPI_TASK; > + else > + scb->header.opcode = INITIATE_ATA_TASK; Are these changes covered by the patch description? Looks like the patch is mixing two separate logical changes. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
