Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:18:52 +0200 From: Joerg Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fdc fdc.c Message-ID: <20040924211852.A97770@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <200409241304.i8OD4nPc029171@repoman.freebsd.org>; from phk@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:04:49PM %2B0000 References: <200409241304.i8OD4nPc029171@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Modified files: > sys/dev/fdc fdc.c > Log: > Lock the flags field with the mutex. > > Improve a number of comments. That doesn't really explain this one: @@ -96,8 +96,6 @@ * fd_drivetype; on i386 machines, if * given as 0, use RTC type for fd0 * and fd1 */ -#define FD_NO_CHLINE 0x10 /* drive does not support changeline - * aka. unit attention */ #define FD_NO_PROBE 0x20 /* don't probe drive (seek test), just * assume it is there */ No idea about why FD_NO_CHLINE got obsolete, but either way, that should also be updated in src/share/man/man4/fdc.4 as well since the 0x10 flag is documented there. What I'm also missing is a documentation of the new debug flags. Not necessarily in fdc(4) (it's useful for developers only), but at least as a comment on top of the file. (Sure, Julian's old debug output wasn't documented either, but we're here to make it better, aren't we? ;-) Shouldn't the flag manipulation in fdc_thread() also be protected by a mutex? (I currently can't really test all this as long as GEOM doesn't allow me unloading the driver...) -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040924211852.A97770>