Elias Oltmanns wrote: >> The correct way to do this is ata_eh_about_to_do(). After that, you >> can just look at ehc->i.dev_action[]. Also, you'll need to call >> ata_eh_done() later. > > We have a problem here, I'm afraid, because we may keep looping in EH > context and still want to pick up ATA_EH_PARK requests. Imagine that > ATA_EH_PARK has been scheduled for device A and the EH thread has > reached the call to schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(). Now, ATA_EH_PARK > is scheduled for device B on the same port. This will wake up the EH > thread, but ATA_EH_PARK is only recorded in link->eh_info, not in > link->eh_context.i. ata_eh_about_to_do() will unconditionally clear the > flag in eh_info, but checking ehc->i.dev_action afterwards will only > tell us whether this flag was set when we entered EH, not whether it had > been set since. > > Should I change ata_eh_about_to_do() so that it will record the action > in link->eh_context before clearing it in link->eh_info? That's what ata_eh_about_to_do() currently does, exactly. Actually, that's the whole reason it's there as the described problem exists for all other actions too. :-) >> And it's probably better to have ehc->unloaded_mask instead of >> ehc->did_unload_mask and clear it here so that if unload is scheduled >> after this point but before EH completes, it does unloading again. >> ie. Something like the following. >> >> ata_eh_done(ATA_EH_UNLOAD); >> ehc->i.unloaded_mask &= ~(1 << dev->devno); > > No need for that because link->eh_context is cleared in > ata_scsi_error(). No, for example, later steps of EH could fail in which case eh_recover will be retried without going out to ata_scsi_error(). >> Can't we just drop ATA_DFLAG_NO_UNLOAD? It doesn't provide any real >> functionality anymore. > > I was afraid you'd say something like that in the end ;-). Well, we > can't. We really should only issue the unload command if we know that > it's safe, i.e., the device supports that feature. We assume it to be > safe if ata_id_has_unload() returns true or if the user told us that the > device does support the command. ATA_DFLAG_NO_UNLOAD is initialised > during device setup by ata_id_has_unload(). For pre-ATA-7 devices (like > mine), the user can manually clear that flag afterwards. Oh I see, so it's initialized during dev_configure (I missed that) and the user needs to be able to override it. Alright, no objection then. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
