Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: libsas: Add return_fis_on_success to sas_ata_task

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

 



On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 09:08:26AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2023/08/18 8:36, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:41:36PM -0700, Igor Pylypiv wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Igor,
> > 
> >> For Command Duration Limits policy 0xD (command completes without
> >> an error) libata needs FIS in order to detect the ATA_SENSE bit and
> >> read the Sense Data for Successful NCQ Commands log (0Fh).
> >>
> >> Set return_fis_on_success for commands that have a CDL descriptor
> >> since any CDL descriptor can be configured with policy 0xD.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Igor Pylypiv <ipylypiv@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c | 3 +++
> >>  include/scsi/libsas.h         | 1 +
> >>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c
> >> index 77714a495cbb..da67c4f671b2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c
> >> @@ -207,6 +207,9 @@ static unsigned int sas_ata_qc_issue(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
> >>  	task->ata_task.use_ncq = ata_is_ncq(qc->tf.protocol);
> >>  	task->ata_task.dma_xfer = ata_is_dma(qc->tf.protocol);
> >>  
> >> +	/* CDL policy 0xD requires FIS for successful (no error) completions */
> >> +	task->ata_task.return_fis_on_success = ata_qc_has_cdl(qc);
> > 
> > In ata_qc_complete(), for a successful command, we call fill_result_tf()
> > if (qc->flags & ATA_QCFLAG_RESULT_TF):
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.5-rc6/drivers/ata/libata-core.c#L4926
> > 
> > My point is, I think that you should set
> > task->ata_task.return_fis_on_success = ata_qc_wants_result(qc);
> > 
> > where ata_qc_wants_result()
> > returns true if ATA_QCFLAG_RESULT_TF is set.
> 
> I do not think we need that helper. Testing the flag directly would be fine.
> If you really insist on introducing the helper, then at least go through libata
> and replace all direct tests of that flag with the helper. But I do not think it
> is worth the churn.

I agree that there is no need for a helper.


Kind regards,
Niklas



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux