Re: [PATCH] scsi: isci: initialize shost fully before calling scsi_add_host()

John Garry
2019-01-14T12:10:23Z

On 12/01/2019 02:34, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> John,
>
>> So how about just drop these APIs and let the user set the shost
>> protection parameters directly, like other shost parameters,
>
> The protection interfaces here obviously predate the block layer
> allocation changes that made this particular issue pop up.
>
>> which should make it a bit clearer when these should be set,
>> i.e. before scsi_add_host()?
>
> In general, I am not so keen on the somewhat messy intersection between
> the host parameters and the host template. The static host templates
> made lots of sense in the days of Seagate ST01 and fixed hardware
> capabilities. But reality is that most modern controllers have to query
> firmware interfaces to figure out what their actual capabilities are.

Hi Martin,

I am not suggested setting the parameters via scsi host template, but
rather dynamically (as we currently do) but just drop the set helper
functions, like:

shost->max_channel = 1;
shost->max_cmd_len = 16;

...

if (hisi_hba->prot_mask) {
dev_info(dev, "Registering for DIF/DIX prot_mask=0x%x\n",
prot_mask);
- scsi_host_set_prot(hisi_hba->shost, prot_mask);
+ shost->prot_capabilities = prot_mask;
}

rc = scsi_add_host(shost, dev);
if (rc)
goto err_out_ha;

rc = sas_register_ha(sha);
if (rc)
goto err_out_register_ha;

I find that it is not crystal clear when scsi_host_set_prot() and
scsi_host_set_guard() should be called, but not so for setting the shost
parameters directly, which is common.

>
> So in this case I think that accessor functions are actually better
> because they allow us to print a big fat warning when you twiddle
> something you shouldn't post-initialization. So that's something I think
> we could--and should--improve.
>

Sure, this is an alternative, but I would rather make it obvious when
these parameters should be set so that this would not be required.

Thanks,
John