Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata: Implement disk shock protection support

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Elias Oltmanns wrote:
>>> Should I change ata_eh_about_to_do() so that it will record the action
>>> in link->eh_context before clearing it in link->eh_info?
>> That's what ata_eh_about_to_do() currently does, exactly.  Actually,
>> that's the whole reason it's there as the described problem exists for
>> all other actions too.  :-)
> 
> Sounds reasonable enough. Much as I regret it, though, I really can't
> find that this is what actually happens. Where exactly is the action
> propagated from ehi to ehc->i? (Checked next-20080903, v2.6.27-rc5 and
> v2.6.26).

Oops, that was me being stupid.  I can't find it either.  Right, it's
never pulled in as for all other actions, it's enough to make sure
that EH is repeated if an action gets scheduled after
ata_eh_about_to_do().  Sorry about the confusion.  Can you please use
the following function before ata_eh_about_to_do()?

static void ata_eh_pull_action(struct ata_link *link, struct ata_device
*dev,
			       unsigned int action)
{
	...
	struct ata_eh_info *ehi = &link->eh_info;
	struct ata_eh_context *ehc = &link->eh_context;
	...

	spin_lock_irqsave(ap->lock, flags);

	if (dev)
		ehc->i.dev_action[dev->devno] |=
			ehi->dev_action[dev->devno] & action;
	ehc->i.action |= ehi->action & action;

	spin_unlock_irqrestore(ap->lock, flags);
}

And add comment explaning why the operation is needed for unload
action?

> On another matter: I don't particularly like the idea that there should
> appear an "EH complete" in the logs every time a head unload request has
> been processed. Is it safe to set ATA_EHI_QUIET when scheduling unload
> requests or is the risk that something important may be missed too high?

Hmmm... ATA_EHI_QUIET masks all EH reporting and as error conditions
are not unlikely under physical shocks, I don't think suppressing them
all is a good idea.  How about adding ATA_EH_QUIET_MASK or a boolean
parameter to ata_eh_about_to_do() such that unload action doesn't set
RECOVERED flag?

Thanks.  :-)

-- 
tejun