Re: [PATCH v2] ata: libata-scsi: Fix get identity data failed

John Garry
2023-05-05T09:51:45Z

On 05/05/2023 10:14, yangxingui wrote:
>> hmmm... is it really acceptable that libata is referencing libsas? I
>> didn't think that it would be. libsas uses libata, not the other way
>> around.
> Yeah, I didn't expect that either. Is there any other way? If so, is
> patch v1 OK?

I still think that we can do better than v1.

>>
>>>>   #include <linux/libata.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/hdreg.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>>>> @@ -2745,10 +2746,17 @@ static struct ata_device
>>>> *__ata_scsi_find_dev(struct ata_port *ap,
>>>>    *    Associated ATA device, or %NULL if not found.
>>>>    */
>>>>   struct ata_device *
>>>> -ata_scsi_find_dev(struct ata_port *ap, const struct scsi_device
>>>> *scsidev)
>>> Why drop the const ?
>>>
>>>> +ata_scsi_find_dev(struct ata_port *ap, struct scsi_device *scsidev)
>>>>   {
>>>> -    struct ata_device *dev = __ata_scsi_find_dev(ap, scsidev);
>>>> +    struct ata_device *dev;
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_SAS_HOST) {
>>
>> And this is SAS host. Not necessarily libsas (even though with ipr
>> libata usage gone, it would be the only user).
> Add a new flag only for libsas?

No, because of previous reason.

Please remind me - at what point do we error within ata_scsi_find_dev()
and return NULL for a libsas host?

Note: it would be good to include that commit message for future reference.

Maybe we could add a method to ata_port_operations to do this lookup. I
assume that is abusing ata_port_operations purpose, since it's mostly
for HW methods.

Or do we actually use sdev->hostdata for libata or libsas? If not, maybe
we could store the struct ata_device pointer there.

I'm just thinking out loud now...

Thanks,
John