On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 03:17:43PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 2024/03/08 19:03, Niklas Cassel wrote: > > > > Anyway, like you said, as you are now creating helper functions: > > ata_ncq_prio_supported(), ata_ncq_prio_enabled(), ata_ncq_prio_enable() > > these function might no longer only be called from sysfs code, > > so it is probably a bad idea to let these functions use spin_lock_irq(). > > > > However, can't ata_ncq_prio_supported() and ata_ncq_prio_enabled() > > still use a simple spin_lock(), why would they need to disable irqs? > > > > Damien, you are the author of ata_ncq_prio_supported_show(), thoughts? > > See above. The spin lock irq-disabling variant is needed because the port lock > is taken from command completion context. Yes of course, I don't know what I was thinking...
