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>