Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-eh: Clarify ata_eh_qc_retry() behavior at call site

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

On 5/19/23 19:40, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> From: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@wdc.com>
> 
> While the function documentation for ata_eh_qc_retry() is clear,
> from simply reading the single function that calls ata_eh_qc_retry(),
> it is not clear that ata_eh_qc_retry() might not retry the command.
> 
> Add a comment in the single function that calls ata_eh_qc_retry() to
> clarify the behavior.

Looks good. But may be resend this rebased on top of Hannes v2 of the error
handler cleanup once he sends it ?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@wdc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/ata/libata-eh.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
> index a6c901811802..170326dc1073 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
> @@ -3814,6 +3814,12 @@ void ata_eh_finish(struct ata_port *ap)
>  			 * considering both err_mask and tf.
>  			 */
>  			if (qc->flags & ATA_QCFLAG_RETRY)
> +				/*
> +				 * Since qc->err_mask is set, ata_eh_qc_retry()
> +				 * will not increment scmd->allowed, so upper
> +				 * layer will only retry the command if it has
> +				 * not already been retried too many times.
> +				 */
>  				ata_eh_qc_retry(qc);
>  			else
>  				ata_eh_qc_complete(qc);
> @@ -3823,6 +3829,12 @@ void ata_eh_finish(struct ata_port *ap)
>  			} else {
>  				/* feed zero TF to sense generation */
>  				memset(&qc->result_tf, 0, sizeof(qc->result_tf));
> +				/*
> +				 * Since qc->err_mask is not set,
> +				 * ata_eh_qc_retry() will increment
> +				 * scmd->allowed, so upper layer is guaranteed
> +				 * to retry the command.
> +				 */
>  				ata_eh_qc_retry(qc);
>  			}
>  		}

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research