From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian King Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] libata: Add ata_host_flags Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:56:21 -0500 Message-ID: <44A02DD5.1030405@us.ibm.com> References: <200606071625.k57GPrit014721@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> <448CDEF3.1000703@pobox.com> <448DB360.8010504@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: brking@us.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:33179 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932658AbWFZS4Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:56:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <448DB360.8010504@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: brking@us.ibm.com Cc: Jeff Garzik , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Brian King wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Brian King wrote: >>> Since SATA devices attached to SAS HBAs will not have >>> a host_set, add a helper function to retrieve the host_set >>> flags which can check for the existence of a host_set. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Brian King >>> --- >>> >>> libata-dev-bjking1/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c | 7 +++---- >>> libata-dev-bjking1/include/linux/libata.h | 7 +++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff -puN drivers/scsi/libata-core.c~libata_sas_no_simplex drivers/scsi/libata-core.c >>> --- libata-dev/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c~libata_sas_no_simplex 2006-06-06 08:55:43.000000000 -0500 >>> +++ libata-dev-bjking1/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c 2006-06-06 08:55:43.000000000 -0500 >>> @@ -2161,7 +2161,7 @@ int ata_set_mode(struct ata_port *ap, st >>> /* Record simplex status. If we selected DMA then the other >>> * host channels are not permitted to do so. >>> */ >>> - if (used_dma && (ap->host_set->flags & ATA_HOST_SIMPLEX)) >>> + if (used_dma && (ata_host_flags(ap) & ATA_HOST_SIMPLEX)) >> I'm not sure I like this one. Will have to think a bit more on this -- >> there might be a need for ipr to carry some cross-port libata state. > > I can't think of any need at this point. Would it be reasonable to go ahead > with this change and add in the support for a cross-port libata state > if and when such a need comes along? Jeff, any further thoughts about this? I had been trying to avoid having any host_set type of data for the SAS usage of libata in part due to not seeing a need and also due to a comment Bartlomiej made a while back: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ide&m=112842136431977&w=2 Brian -- Brian King eServer Storage I/O IBM Linux Technology Center