On 01/17/2015 09:35 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Ronny reports: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87101
>> "Since commit 8a4aeec8d "libata/ahci: accommodate tag ordered
>> controllers" the access to the harddisk on the first SATA-port is
>> failing on its first access. The access to the harddisk on the
>> second port is working normal.
>> When reverting the above commit, access to both harddisks is working
>> fine again."
>> Maintain tag ordered submission as the default, but allow sata_sil24 to
>> continue with the old behavior.
>> Cc: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Cc: Tejun Heo <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Reported-by: Ronny Hegewald <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 5 ++++-
>> drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c | 2 +-
>> include/linux/libata.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> index 5c84fb5c3372..e2085d4b5b93 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> @@ -4748,7 +4748,10 @@ static struct ata_queued_cmd *ata_qc_new(struct
ata_port *ap)
>> return NULL;
>>
>> for (i = 0, tag = ap->last_tag + 1; i < max_queue; i++, tag++) {
>> - tag = tag < max_queue ? tag : 0;
>> + if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_LOWTAG)
>> + tag = i;
>> + else
>> + tag = tag < max_queue ? tag : 0;
> Ugh, this is clear abuse of the ?: operator... Why not simply:
> else if (tag >= max_queue)
> tag = 0;
"Abuse"!? Let's just call it "creative differences adding in a minimal quirk
while neglecting to refactor" ;-).
In fact, the old code had the same abuse, I didn't notice that...
Sure, that's cleaner.
Thanks. :-)
MBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
