On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:16:23PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 2/16/24 20:20, Niklas Cassel wrote:
From: Damien Le Moal dlemoal@kernel.org
For regular system shutdown, ata_dev_power_set_standby() will be executed twice: once the scsi device is removed and another when ata_pci_shutdown_one() executes and EH completes unloading the devices.
Make the second call to ata_dev_power_set_standby() do nothing by using ata_dev_power_is_active() and return if the device is already in standby.
Fixes: 2da4c5e24e86 ("ata: libata-core: Improve ata_dev_power_set_active()") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal dlemoal@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel cassel@kernel.org
This fix was originally part of patch that contained both a fix and a revert in a single patch: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/20240111115123.1258422-3-dlemoal@kernel.or...
This patch contains the only the fix (as it is valid even without the revert), without the revert.
Updated the Fixes tag to point to a more appropriate commit, since we no longer revert any code.
drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c index d9f80f4f70f5..af2334bc806d 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ static unsigned int ata_dev_init_params(struct ata_device *dev, 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 bool ata_dev_power_is_active(struct ata_device *dev);
I forgot what I did originally but didn't I move the code of ata_dev_power_is_active() before ata_dev_power_set_standby() to avoid this forward declaration ?
With that, the code is a little odd as ata_dev_power_is_active() is defined between ata_dev_power_set_standby() and ata_dev_power_set_active() but both functions use it...
Yes, you moved the function instead of forward declaring it.
But then there was a discussion of why ATA_TFLAG_ISADDR is set in ata_dev_power_is_active(): https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/d63a7b93-d1a3-726e-355c-b4a4608626f4@gmail...
And you said that you were going to look in to it: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/0563322c-4093-4e7d-bb48-61712238494e@kerne...
Since this fix does not strictly require any changes to ata_dev_power_is_active(), and since we already have a bunch of forward declared functions, I think that forward declaring it is a good way to avoid this actual fix from falling through the cracks.
Kind regards, Niklas