Re: [PATCH 5/8] scsi: remove the unchecked_isa_dma flag

From: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Khalid Aziz <khalid@gonehiking.org>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
	Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
	Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] scsi: remove the unchecked_isa_dma flag
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 17:46:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2fa7fad0-2689-24c9-d356-50f98ca3535d@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210331073001.46776-6-hch@lst.de>

On 3/31/21 9:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Remove the unchecked_isa_dma now that all users are gone.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Acked-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
> ---
>   Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.rst |  4 --
>   drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_main.c       |  1 -
>   drivers/scsi/hosts.c                    |  7 +---
>   drivers/scsi/scsi_debugfs.c             |  1 -
>   drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c                 | 52 +++----------------------
>   drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c                |  6 +--
>   drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c               |  2 -
>   drivers/scsi/sg.c                       | 10 +----
>   drivers/scsi/sr_ioctl.c                 | 12 ++----
>   drivers/scsi/st.c                       | 20 ++++------
>   drivers/scsi/st.h                       |  2 -
>   include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h                |  7 ++--
>   include/scsi/scsi_host.h                |  6 ---
>   13 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> index b6378c8ca783ea..b71ea1a69c8b60 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> @@ -373,7 +373,6 @@ shost_rd_attr(cmd_per_lun, "%hd\n");
>   shost_rd_attr(can_queue, "%d\n");
>   shost_rd_attr(sg_tablesize, "%hu\n");
>   shost_rd_attr(sg_prot_tablesize, "%hu\n");
> -shost_rd_attr(unchecked_isa_dma, "%d\n");
>   shost_rd_attr(prot_capabilities, "%u\n");
>   shost_rd_attr(prot_guard_type, "%hd\n");
>   shost_rd_attr2(proc_name, hostt->proc_name, "%s\n");
> @@ -411,7 +410,6 @@ static struct attribute *scsi_sysfs_shost_attrs[] = {
>   	&dev_attr_can_queue.attr,
>   	&dev_attr_sg_tablesize.attr,
>   	&dev_attr_sg_prot_tablesize.attr,
> -	&dev_attr_unchecked_isa_dma.attr,
>   	&dev_attr_proc_name.attr,
>   	&dev_attr_scan.attr,
>   	&dev_attr_hstate.attr,

Is it OK to remove a long standing sysfs attribute?
Was there any deprecation phase?

I just noticed it in our CI reporting fails due to this change since at least 
linux-next 20210409. Suppose it came via 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-block.git/commit/?h=for-5.13/block&id=aaff5ebaa2694f283b7d07fdd55fb287ffc4f1e9

Wanted to ask before I adapt the test cases.

Cf. 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20080224233529.456981B4183@basil.firstfloor.org/T/#u
"An alternative would be to always make it report 0 now."

-- 
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Kind regards
Steffen Maier

Linux on IBM Z Development

https://www.ibm.com/privacy/us/en/
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Matthias Hartmann
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294