FreeBSD 4.9 RC1 (i386) now available

[Erik Trulsson]

On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:40:56PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> 
> Is
> http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=1132682+0+current/cvs-all
> 
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/ata/ata-isa.c.diff?r1=1.4.2.2&r2=1.4.2.3
> 
> not the commit that is needed ?

Yes, as I said it has already been fixed.  It was that commit I was
referring to.  No further fix is needed as far as I can tell.

> 
>         ---Mike
> 
> At 08:23 PM 01/10/2003, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:58:10AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> On 2003-Sep-29 18:09:05 +0200, Erik Trulsson <ertr1013 at student.uu.se> 
> >wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:19:05AM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote:
> >> >> Not all FTP sites have the first release candidate, but it is at least
> >> >> available from ftp.freebsd.org.  Please download and install this
> >> >> candidate and help us find bugs BEFORE we call it 4.9-RELEASE.
> >> >
> >> ><sarcasm>
> >> >You mean apart from the minor bug that non-pci kernels using ata won't 
> >even
> >> >compile, and hasn't worked for the last three weeks or so?
> >> ></sarcasm>
> >> >
> >> >See
> >> >
> >> >http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=44649+0+archive/2003/freeb 
> >sd-stable/20030928.freebsd-stable
> >> >
> >> >or
> >> >
> >> >http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=816008+0+archive/2003/cvs- 
> >all/20030921.cvs-all
> >> >
> >> >for details and a patch.
> >>
> >> Whilst both Erik and I independently came up with the same patch, upon
> >> reflection, I'm not sure that this is the correct patch.  None of the
> >> callers to ata_dmastart() check for a return value and therefore this
> >> probably should be a void function - so the code in ata-isa.c is
> >> correct and the remaining declaration and definitions are incorrect.
> >
> >The "real" version of ata_dmastart() found in ata-dma.c does return
> >different values for different situations, so for compatibility that
> >function would also need to be modified, which I am not sure is a good
> >idea.
> >You are correct in that the return value is currently not checked by
> >the callers to ata_dmastart, but perhaps it should be?
> >I believe the return value probably should be kept, in case some future
> >caller wants to check how the call succeeded, but for an authoritative
> >answer you would have to ask one of the ATA-experts.
> >
> >Anyway, it doesn't really matter.  The code compiles with the patch,
> >and a return value that is ignored is quite harmless, so any changes
> >should wait until after 4.9-RELEASE at least.
> >
> >>
> >> In either case, I would request that this be fixed before 4.9-RELEASE.
> >
> >It has already been fixed.  The commit to fix it was made by luoqi about
> >20 hours ago.

-- 
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013 at student.uu.se