Re: [PATCH] libata: mask swap internal and hardware tag

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

 



On 9/20/18 9:07 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 09/20/2018 05:22 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
>> When we're comparing the hardware completion mask passed in from the
>> driver with the internal tag pending mask, we need to account for the
>> fact that the internal tag is different from the hardware tag. If not,
>> then we can end up either prematurely completing the internal tag (since
>> it's not set in the hw mask), or simply flag an error:
>>
>> ata2: illegal qc_active transition (100000000->00000001)
>>
>> If the internal tag is set, then swap that with the hardware tag in this
>> case before comparing with what the hardware reports.
>>
>> Fixes: 28361c403683 ("libata: add extra internal command")
>> Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201151
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Reported-by: Paul Sbarra <sbarra.paul@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Tested-by: Paul Sbarra <sbarra.paul@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> index 599e01bcdef2..a9dd4ea7467d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> @@ -5359,10 +5359,20 @@ void ata_qc_complete(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
>>   */
>>  int ata_qc_complete_multiple(struct ata_port *ap, u64 qc_active)
>>  {
>> +	u64 done_mask, ap_qc_active = ap->qc_active;
>>  	int nr_done = 0;
>> -	u64 done_mask;
>>  
>> -	done_mask = ap->qc_active ^ qc_active;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If the internal tag is set on ap->qc_active, then we care about
>> +	 * bit0 on the passed in qc_active mask. Move that bit up to match
>> +	 * the internal tag.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (ap_qc_active & (1ULL << ATA_TAG_INTERNAL)) {
> 
>    Maybe BIT_ULL(ATA_TAG_INTERNAL)?

Honestly, I had defines like that, since they hide what's going on, whereas
the above is immediately readable to anyone. If it isn't, they probably
shouldn't be fiddling with that code :-)

Besides, we don't use that anywhere in libata currently. If someone has
a good case for why that should change, I'm all ears. But should be
a separate change.

-- 
Jens Axboe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux