From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Qiu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libata: Fix scsi_host can_queue issue in ata_qc_new() Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:10:38 +0800 Message-ID: <53CF199E.2020108@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1406040619-1722-1-git-send-email-qiudayu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140722154244.GJ13851@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.143]:32779 "EHLO e23smtp01.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751692AbaGWCKs (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:10:48 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:10:45 +1000 In-Reply-To: <20140722154244.GJ13851@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, haokexin@gmail.com, Dan Williams On 07/22/2014 11:42 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > (cc'ing Dan) > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:50:19AM -0400, Mike Qiu wrote: >> The can_queue in scsi_host can be more than ATA_MAX_QUEUE (32), >> for example, in ipr, it can be 100 or more. >> >> Also, some drivers, like ipr driver, haven't filled the field >> scsi_host in ata_port, and will lead a call trace, so add >> check for that. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Qiu >> --- >> drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 15 ++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> index 259d879..a5b9c70 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> @@ -4734,7 +4734,10 @@ static struct ata_queued_cmd *ata_qc_new(struct ata_port *ap) >> struct ata_queued_cmd *qc = NULL; >> unsigned int i, tag, max_queue; >> >> - max_queue = ap->scsi_host->can_queue; >> + if (ap->scsi_host && ap->scsi_host->can_queue <= ATA_MAX_QUEUE) >> + max_queue = ap->scsi_host->can_queue; >> + else >> + max_queue = ATA_MAX_QUEUE; >> >> /* no command while frozen */ >> if (unlikely(ap->pflags & ATA_PFLAG_FROZEN)) >> @@ -6109,16 +6112,6 @@ int ata_host_register(struct ata_host *host, struct scsi_host_template *sht) >> { >> int i, rc; >> >> - /* >> - * The max queue supported by hardware must not be greater than >> - * ATA_MAX_QUEUE. >> - */ >> - if (sht->can_queue > ATA_MAX_QUEUE) { >> - dev_err(host->dev, "BUG: the hardware max queue is too large\n"); >> - WARN_ON(1); >> - return -EINVAL; >> - } >> - > So, ummm, I really don't like that we're adding the conditionals to > the hot path (yeah, its implementation is slow but still). Maybe we Yes, agree ..., not a good idea to do this... Thanks Mike > need to store the chosen queue depth after all? Dan? > > Thanks. >