[git-patch] hotplug fix patches added

[git-patch] hotplug fix patches added

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

Two hotplug fix patches have been added to libata-tj #for-jeff.

* libata: add missing finish_wait() call in ata_port_wait_eh()
* libata: cosmetic change in struct ata_port

The following two patches have been dropped as it hasn't been acked yet.

* ata_piix: fix ghost device probing by honoring PCS present bits[1]
* libata: add ata_port->private_flags[2]

libata-tj #for-jeff is available at the following URL

http://htj.dyndns.org/git/?p=libata-tj.git;a=shortlog;h=for-jeff
git://htj.dyndns.org/libata-tj for-jeff

The tree is tagged with the followings

fj-misc
fj-hp-prep
fj-hp-LLDD-prep
fj-hp
fj-hp-fixes

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/10937
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/11177

Re: [git-patch] hotplug fix patches added

[Jeff Garzik]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Two hotplug fix patches have been added to libata-tj #for-jeff.
> 
> * libata: add missing finish_wait() call in ata_port_wait_eh()
> * libata: cosmetic change in struct ata_port
> 
> The following two patches have been dropped as it hasn't been acked yet.
> 
> * ata_piix: fix ghost device probing by honoring PCS present bits[1]

Seems vaguely OK to me...


> * libata: add ata_port->private_flags[2]

What's the justification for this?  Running out of room in flags?

If we are going to do this, I would move any such flags to the 
LLDD-allocated hpriv structure completely.  I wouldn't add hpriv_flags 
to struct ata_port.

	Jeff

Re: [git-patch] hotplug fix patches added

[Tejun Heo]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Two hotplug fix patches have been added to libata-tj #for-jeff.
>>
>> * libata: add missing finish_wait() call in ata_port_wait_eh()
>> * libata: cosmetic change in struct ata_port
>>
>> The following two patches have been dropped as it hasn't been acked yet.
>>
>> * ata_piix: fix ghost device probing by honoring PCS present bits[1]
> 
> Seems vaguely OK to me...
> 
> 
>> * libata: add ata_port->private_flags[2]
> 
> What's the justification for this?  Running out of room in flags?

Yeap, ran out of bits while implementing power management.

> If we are going to do this, I would move any such flags to the 
> LLDD-allocated hpriv structure completely.  I wouldn't add hpriv_flags 
> to struct ata_port.

Several drivers only need flags.  IMHO, having to allocate hpriv just 
for flags is a bit annoying.  I also thought about separating capability 
flags and dynamic flags but couldn't think of proper field name. 
ap->dyn_flags?  Also, it would be easy to screw up and test the wrong 
field.  Another sucky option was using u64 for flags.

BTW, both patches are available in branch #for-jeff-pending.

-- 
tejun

Re: [git-patch] hotplug fix patches added

[Jeff Garzik]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Two hotplug fix patches have been added to libata-tj #for-jeff.
> 
> * libata: add missing finish_wait() call in ata_port_wait_eh()
> * libata: cosmetic change in struct ata_port
> 
> The following two patches have been dropped as it hasn't been acked yet.
> 
> * ata_piix: fix ghost device probing by honoring PCS present bits[1]
> * libata: add ata_port->private_flags[2]
> 
> libata-tj #for-jeff is available at the following URL
> 
> http://htj.dyndns.org/git/?p=libata-tj.git;a=shortlog;h=for-jeff
> git://htj.dyndns.org/libata-tj for-jeff

pulled

Re: [git-patch] hotplug fix patches added

[Jeff Garzik]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Two hotplug fix patches have been added to libata-tj #for-jeff.
>>>
>>> * libata: add missing finish_wait() call in ata_port_wait_eh()
>>> * libata: cosmetic change in struct ata_port
>>>
>>> The following two patches have been dropped as it hasn't been acked yet.
>>>
>>> * ata_piix: fix ghost device probing by honoring PCS present bits[1]
>>
>> Seems vaguely OK to me...
>>
>>
>>> * libata: add ata_port->private_flags[2]
>>
>> What's the justification for this?  Running out of room in flags?
> 
> Yeap, ran out of bits while implementing power management.
> 
>> If we are going to do this, I would move any such flags to the 
>> LLDD-allocated hpriv structure completely.  I wouldn't add hpriv_flags 
>> to struct ata_port.
> 
> Several drivers only need flags.  IMHO, having to allocate hpriv just 
> for flags is a bit annoying.  I also thought about separating capability 
> flags and dynamic flags but couldn't think of proper field name. 
> ap->dyn_flags?  Also, it would be easy to screw up and test the wrong 
> field.  Another sucky option was using u64 for flags.

I tend to think that most drivers fall into two categories:

* bmdma (PCI IDE-like) drivers
* drivers which already do their own hpriv allocation and management

Therefore, I would be OK with adding a bmdma_flags member, to be used 
only by bmdma drivers [and eventually separated from the high level 
libata API, as discussed].  Otherwise, I would go ahead and add code to 
allocate an hpriv structure in the driver.

	Jeff

Re: [git-patch] hotplug fix patches added

[Tejun Heo]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Several drivers only need flags.  IMHO, having to allocate hpriv just 
>> for flags is a bit annoying.  I also thought about separating 
>> capability flags and dynamic flags but couldn't think of proper field 
>> name. ap->dyn_flags?  Also, it would be easy to screw up and test the 
>> wrong field.  Another sucky option was using u64 for flags.
> 
> I tend to think that most drivers fall into two categories:
> 
> * bmdma (PCI IDE-like) drivers
> * drivers which already do their own hpriv allocation and management
> 
> Therefore, I would be OK with adding a bmdma_flags member, to be used 
> only by bmdma drivers [and eventually separated from the high level 
> libata API, as discussed].  Otherwise, I would go ahead and add code to 
> allocate an hpriv structure in the driver.

Okay, bmdma_flags then.  I'll reserve lower 16 bits for generic bmdma 
flags and allow LLDDs to use upper 16 bits.

-- 
tejun