Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] ata: libata-core: Allow forcing most horkage flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/25/22 03:34, Damien Le Moal wrote:
To facilitate debugging of drive issues in the field without kernel
changes (e.g. temporary test patches), add an entry for most horkage
flags in the force_tbl array to allow controlling these horkage
settings with the libata.force kernel boot parameter.

Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx>
---
  drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
index e5a0e73b39d3..f68cb5639ec4 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
@@ -6230,9 +6230,27 @@ static const struct ata_force_param force_tbl[] __initconst = {
  	force_horkage_onoff(ncqtrim,	ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM),
  	force_horkage_onoff(ncqati,	ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_ON_ATI),
- force_horkage_on(dump_id, ATA_HORKAGE_DUMP_ID),
+	force_horkage_onoff(trim,	ATA_HORKAGE_NOTRIM),
+	force_horkage_on(trim_zero,	ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM),
+	force_horkage_on(max_trim_128m, ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_TRIM_128M),
+
+	force_horkage_onoff(dma,	ATA_HORKAGE_NODMA),
  	force_horkage_on(atapi_dmadir,	ATA_HORKAGE_ATAPI_DMADIR),
-	force_horkage_on(disable,	ATA_HORKAGE_DISABLE)
+	force_horkage_on(atapi_mod16_dma, ATA_HORKAGE_ATAPI_MOD16_DMA),
+
+	force_horkage_onoff(dmalog,	ATA_HORKAGE_NO_DMA_LOG),
+	force_horkage_onoff(iddevlog,	ATA_HORKAGE_NO_ID_DEV_LOG),
+	force_horkage_onoff(logdir,	ATA_HORKAGE_NO_LOG_DIR),
+
+	force_horkage_on(max_sec_128,	ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_128),
+	force_horkage_on(max_sec_1024,	ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_1024),
+	force_horkage_on(max_sec_lba48,	ATA_HORKAGE_MAX_SEC_LBA48),
+
+	force_horkage_onoff(lpm,	ATA_HORKAGE_NOLPM),
+	force_horkage_onoff(setxfer,	ATA_HORKAGE_NOSETXFER),
+	force_horkage_on(dump_id,	ATA_HORKAGE_DUMP_ID),
+
+	force_horkage_on(disable,	ATA_HORKAGE_DISABLE),

... and this exemplifies my concerns with the 'onoff' mechanism:
Why is 'disable' just marked as 'on' ?
Sure we can set it to 'off' (we have to, otherwise that flag would always be set). And if we can set it to 'off', where's the different to 'onoff' ?

Style-differences apart it looks good.

Cheers,

Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke                Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx                              +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux