On 9/22/23 17:29, Damien Le Moal wrote:
The scsi device flag no_start_on_resume is not set by any scsi low
level driver. Remove it. This reverts the changes introduced by commit
0a8589055936 ("ata,scsi: do not issue START STOP UNIT on resume").
Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/sd.c | 13 ++++---------
include/scsi/scsi_device.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
index bff8663be7e0..e372834bf56f 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
@@ -3900,20 +3900,15 @@ static int sd_resume(struct device *dev, bool runtime)
if (!sdkp) /* E.g.: runtime resume at the start of sd_probe() */
return 0;
- if (!sd_do_start_stop(sdkp->device, runtime)) {
- sdkp->suspended = 0;
- return 0;
- }
-
- if (!sdkp->device->no_start_on_resume) {
+ if (sd_do_start_stop(sdkp->device, runtime)) {
sd_printk(KERN_NOTICE, sdkp, "Starting disk\n");
ret = sd_start_stop_device(sdkp, 1);
+ if (!ret)
+ opal_unlock_from_suspend(sdkp->opal_dev);
}
- if (!ret) {
- opal_unlock_from_suspend(sdkp->opal_dev);
+ if (!ret)
sdkp->suspended = 0;
- }
return ret;
}
I'm fine with removing the no_start_on_resume member but it seems to me
that the above patch makes sd_resume() harder to read. I like the
original approach (early return if sd_do_start_stop() returns false)
better than the new approach (set ret inside an if-statement and clear
sdkp->suspended after the sd_start_stop_device() call if ret == 0).
In case others prefer the new flow: shouldn't that new flow have been
introduced in patch 4/23 of this series instead of in this patch?
Thanks,
Bart.
