Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] libata, libsas: kill pm_result and related cleanup

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 01:52:48PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Tejun says:
>   "At least for libata, worrying about suspend/resume failures don't make
>    whole lot of sense.  If suspend failed, just proceed with suspend.  If
>    the device can't be woken up afterwards, that's that.  There isn't
>    anything we could have done differently anyway.  The same for resume, if
>    spinup fails, the device is dud and the following commands will invoke
>    EH actions and will eventually fail.  Again, there really isn't any
>    *choice* to make.  Just making sure the errors are handled gracefully
>    (ie. don't crash) and the following commands are handled correctly
>    should be enough."
> 
> The only libata user that actually cares about the result from a suspend
> operation is libsas.  However, it only cares about whether queuing a new
> operation collides with an in-flight one.  All libsas does with the
> error is retry, but we can just let libata wait for the previous
> operation before continuing.
> 
> Other cleanups include:
> 1/ Unifying all ata port pm operations on an ata_port_pm_ prefix
> 2/ Marking all ata port pm helper routines as returning void, only
>    ata_port_pm_ entry points need to fake a 0 return value.
> 3/ Killing ata_port_{suspend|resume}_common() in favor of calling
>    ata_port_request_pm() directly
> 4/ Killing the wrappers that just do a to_ata_port() conversion
> 5/ Clearly marking the entry points that do async operations with an
>   _async suffix.
> 
> Reference: http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=138995409532286&w=2
> 
> Cc: Phillip Susi <psusi@ubuntu.com>
> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>

Can somebody ack the sas part?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun