Re: [PATCH 5/8] scsi: remove the unchecked_isa_dma flag

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

 



On 3/31/21 9:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Remove the unchecked_isa_dma now that all users are gone.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Acked-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
---
  Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.rst |  4 --
  drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_main.c       |  1 -
  drivers/scsi/hosts.c                    |  7 +---
  drivers/scsi/scsi_debugfs.c             |  1 -
  drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c                 | 52 +++----------------------
  drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c                |  6 +--
  drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c               |  2 -
  drivers/scsi/sg.c                       | 10 +----
  drivers/scsi/sr_ioctl.c                 | 12 ++----
  drivers/scsi/st.c                       | 20 ++++------
  drivers/scsi/st.h                       |  2 -
  include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h                |  7 ++--
  include/scsi/scsi_host.h                |  6 ---
  13 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-)


diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
index b6378c8ca783ea..b71ea1a69c8b60 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
@@ -373,7 +373,6 @@ shost_rd_attr(cmd_per_lun, "%hd\n");
  shost_rd_attr(can_queue, "%d\n");
  shost_rd_attr(sg_tablesize, "%hu\n");
  shost_rd_attr(sg_prot_tablesize, "%hu\n");
-shost_rd_attr(unchecked_isa_dma, "%d\n");
  shost_rd_attr(prot_capabilities, "%u\n");
  shost_rd_attr(prot_guard_type, "%hd\n");
  shost_rd_attr2(proc_name, hostt->proc_name, "%s\n");
@@ -411,7 +410,6 @@ static struct attribute *scsi_sysfs_shost_attrs[] = {
  	&dev_attr_can_queue.attr,
  	&dev_attr_sg_tablesize.attr,
  	&dev_attr_sg_prot_tablesize.attr,
-	&dev_attr_unchecked_isa_dma.attr,
  	&dev_attr_proc_name.attr,
  	&dev_attr_scan.attr,
  	&dev_attr_hstate.attr,

Is it OK to remove a long standing sysfs attribute?
Was there any deprecation phase?

I just noticed it in our CI reporting fails due to this change since at least linux-next 20210409. Suppose it came via https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-block.git/commit/?h=for-5.13/block&id=aaff5ebaa2694f283b7d07fdd55fb287ffc4f1e9

Wanted to ask before I adapt the test cases.

Cf. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20080224233529.456981B4183@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
"An alternative would be to always make it report 0 now."

--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Kind regards
Steffen Maier

Linux on IBM Z Development

https://www.ibm.com/privacy/us/en/
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Matthias Hartmann
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux