Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] ata: libata: Rename ata_dev_blacklisted()

[Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>]

On 7/26/24 01:43, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 02:45:37PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Rename the function ata_dev_blacklisted() to ata_dev_horkage() as this
>> new name:
>> 1) Does not use an expression that can be considered as negatively loaded.
>> 2) The name does not reflect what the function actually does, which is
>>    returning a set of horkage flag for the device, of which only one
>>    flag will completely disable the device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Igor Pylypiv <ipylypiv@google.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 19 +++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> index a35bce4236d3..272770f09609 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static unsigned int ata_dev_init_params(struct ata_device *dev,
>>  					u16 heads, u16 sectors);
>>  static unsigned int ata_dev_set_xfermode(struct ata_device *dev);
>>  static void ata_dev_xfermask(struct ata_device *dev);
>> -static unsigned long ata_dev_blacklisted(const struct ata_device *dev);
>> +static unsigned long ata_dev_horkage(const struct ata_device *dev);
>>  
>>  static DEFINE_IDA(ata_ida);
>>  
>> @@ -2223,7 +2223,7 @@ static inline u8 ata_dev_knobble(struct ata_device *dev)
>>  {
>>  	struct ata_port *ap = dev->link->ap;
>>  
>> -	if (ata_dev_blacklisted(dev) & ATA_HORKAGE_BRIDGE_OK)
>> +	if (ata_dev_horkage(dev) & ATA_HORKAGE_BRIDGE_OK)
>>  		return 0;
>>  
>>  	return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(dev->id)));
>> @@ -2830,7 +2830,7 @@ int ata_dev_configure(struct ata_device *dev)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	/* set horkage */
>> -	dev->horkage |= ata_dev_blacklisted(dev);
>> +	dev->horkage |= ata_dev_horkage(dev);
>>  	ata_force_horkage(dev);
>>  
>>  	if (dev->horkage & ATA_HORKAGE_DISABLE) {
>> @@ -3987,13 +3987,13 @@ int ata_dev_revalidate(struct ata_device *dev, unsigned int new_class,
>>  	return rc;
>>  }
>>  
>> -struct ata_blacklist_entry {
>> +struct ata_dev_horkage_entry {
>>  	const char *model_num;
>>  	const char *model_rev;
>>  	unsigned long horkage;
>>  };
>>  
>> -static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>> +static const struct ata_dev_horkage_entry ata_dev_horkages[] = {
>>  	/* Devices with DMA related problems under Linux */
>>  	{ "WDC AC11000H",	NULL,		ATA_HORKAGE_NODMA },
>>  	{ "WDC AC22100H",	NULL,		ATA_HORKAGE_NODMA },
>> @@ -4111,7 +4111,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>  
>>  	/* Devices which get the IVB wrong */
>>  	{ "QUANTUM FIREBALLlct10 05", "A03.0900", ATA_HORKAGE_IVB },
>> -	/* Maybe we should just blacklist TSSTcorp... */
>> +	/* Maybe we should just add all TSSTcorp devices... */
>>  	{ "TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S202[HJN]", "SB0[01]",  ATA_HORKAGE_IVB },
>>  
>>  	/* Devices that do not need bridging limits applied */
>> @@ -4266,11 +4266,11 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>  	{ }
>>  };
>>  
>> -static unsigned long ata_dev_blacklisted(const struct ata_device *dev)
>> +static unsigned long ata_dev_horkage(const struct ata_device *dev)
> 
> So it turns that the term "horkage" is only used by libata:
> $ git grep -i horkage
> 
> See also:
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/752755/what-is-horkage
> 
> I have mixed emotions about this. In one way I want to preserve the legacy,
> but in one way, the term quirk/quirks is used everywhere else in the kernel,
> so it is way more intuitive for other kernel developers to understand what
> this is if we just use the common terminology.
> 
> I do think that the name ata_dev_horkage() is not good because it sounds
> like you can just have a single horkage, but in fact a devices can have
> serveral quirks. So should the name be ata_dev_horkages() ?
> 
> Search the kernel tree gives zero results for this before your patch:
> $ git grep -i horkages origin/master  | wc -l
> 0
> 
> So maybe the plural of horkage is horkage???
> 
> To me, this again suggests that quirk/quirks is way clearer.
> (And we do also use the term quirk in libata:
> $ git grep -i quirk drivers/ata
> so in one way renaming would also make us more consistent...)
> 
> I do see that you have used "horkages" in this patch however.
> 
> So either migrate to quirk/quirks, or we continue to make up our own words.
> 
> I prefer the former.
> dev->quirks |= ata_dev_quirks(dev);
> 
> 
> If we choose the latter, may I suggest that we change this line:
> dev->horkage |= ata_dev_horkage(dev);
> to:
> dev->horkages |= ata_dev_horkages(dev);
> 
> to make it clearer that we can have several *whatever the plural of horkage*.
> 
> see e.g. how nvme does it:
> ctrl->quirks = quirks;
> and
> if (ns->ctrl->quirks & NVME_QUIRK_DEALLOCATE_ZEROES)

Yep, when writing these patches, I thought about doing such renaming but end
choosing the lazy path :)

I completely agree about it, so will add patches to do that.

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research