On 2/16/24 21:33, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:16:23PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 20:20, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>>> From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> For regular system shutdown, ata_dev_power_set_standby() will be
>>> executed twice: once the scsi device is removed and another when
>>> ata_pci_shutdown_one() executes and EH completes unloading the devices.
>>>
>>> Make the second call to ata_dev_power_set_standby() do nothing by using
>>> ata_dev_power_is_active() and return if the device is already in
>>> standby.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 2da4c5e24e86 ("ata: libata-core: Improve ata_dev_power_set_active()")
>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <cassel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> This fix was originally part of patch that contained both a fix and
>>> a revert in a single patch:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/20240111115123.1258422-3-dlemoal@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>>
>>> This patch contains the only the fix (as it is valid even without the
>>> revert), without the revert.
>>>
>>> Updated the Fixes tag to point to a more appropriate commit, since we
>>> no longer revert any code.
>>>
>>> drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 6 ++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> index d9f80f4f70f5..af2334bc806d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ static unsigned int ata_dev_init_params(struct ata_device *dev,
>>> static unsigned int ata_dev_set_xfermode(struct ata_device *dev);
>>> static void ata_dev_xfermask(struct ata_device *dev);
>>> static unsigned long ata_dev_blacklisted(const struct ata_device *dev);
>>> +static bool ata_dev_power_is_active(struct ata_device *dev);
>>
>> I forgot what I did originally but didn't I move the code of
>> ata_dev_power_is_active() before ata_dev_power_set_standby() to avoid this
>> forward declaration ?
>>
>> With that, the code is a little odd as ata_dev_power_is_active() is defined
>> between ata_dev_power_set_standby() and ata_dev_power_set_active() but both
>> functions use it...
>
> Yes, you moved the function instead of forward declaring it.
>
> But then there was a discussion of why ATA_TFLAG_ISADDR is set in
> ata_dev_power_is_active():
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/d63a7b93-d1a3-726e-355c-b4a4608626f4@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> And you said that you were going to look in to it:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/0563322c-4093-4e7d-bb48-61712238494e@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
Ah, yes, I remember now. Let me have a look at this and resend a proper patch, +
another one for the ISADDR cleanup. I really don't want to fix this with that
forward declaration if we can avoid it (and we clearly can here).
> Since this fix does not strictly require any changes to
> ata_dev_power_is_active(), and since we already have a bunch of
> forward declared functions, I think that forward declaring it is a
> good way to avoid this actual fix from falling through the cracks.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Niklas
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
