Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error, take#2

On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 02:57:44PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
 > Jeff Garzik wrote:
 > > Tejun Heo wrote:
 > >> +            if (class == ATA_DEV_ATA)
 > >> +                class = ATA_DEV_ATAPI;
 > >> +            else
 > >> +                class = ATA_DEV_ATA;
 > > 
 > > 
 > > the 'else' branch is obviously redundant
 > 
 > Why?  We can also fallback from ATAPI to ATA.

Then did you mean to write..

+            if (class == ATA_DEV_ATA)
+                class = ATA_DEV_ATAPI;
+            else if (class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI)
+                class = ATA_DEV_ATA;

?

Otherwise, as Jeff mentions, you're doing a redundant assignment
in the else branch.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error, take#2
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: 2.6.20 libata cdrom
    • From: William Thompson <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.20 libata cdrom
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.20 libata cdrom
    • From: William Thompson <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.20 libata cdrom
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.20 libata cdrom
    • From: William Thompson <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error
    • From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error, take#2
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error, take#2
    • From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error, take#2
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: why does x86 "make defconfig" build a single, lonely module?
• Next by Date: Re: why does x86 "make defconfig" build a single, lonely module?
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error, take#2
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error, take#2
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]