mbox series

[v2,0/7] misc libata improvements

Message ID 20221229170005.49118-1-niklas.cassel@wdc.com
Headers show
Series misc libata improvements | expand

Message

Niklas Cassel Dec. 29, 2022, 4:59 p.m. UTC
Hello there,

This series contains misc libata improvements.

These improvements were identified while developing support for Command
Duration Limits (CDL). All patches in this series (i.e. V1 of these
patches) were orignally sent out as part of the CDL series, found here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/510732e0-7962-cf54-c22c-f1d7066895f5@opensource.wdc.com/T/

However, as these improvements are completely unrelated to CDL, they can
be merged independently, and should not need to wait for other patches.


Kind regards,
Niklas


Changes since V1:
-Added missing chain sign-off (in addition to author sign-off).
-Picked up tags from John.
-Rephrased commit message for patch 1/7 as suggested by John.
-Rephrased commit subject for patch 3/7 to more clearly hightlight
 that this is simply an improvement, and not strictly a bug fix.

Damien Le Moal (2):
  ata: libata: simplify qc_fill_rtf port operation interface
  ata: libata-scsi: improve ata_scsiop_maint_in()

Niklas Cassel (5):
  ata: scsi: rename flag ATA_QCFLAG_FAILED to ATA_QCFLAG_EH
  ata: libata: read the shared status for successful NCQ commands once
  ata: libata: respect successfully completed commands during errors
  ata: libata: move NCQ related ATA_DFLAGs
  ata: libata-scsi: do not overwrite SCSI ML and status bytes

 drivers/ata/acard-ahci.c      |   8 +-
 drivers/ata/libahci.c         | 171 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 drivers/ata/libata-core.c     |  12 +--
 drivers/ata/libata-eh.c       |  22 ++---
 drivers/ata/libata-sata.c     |   7 +-
 drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c     |  11 ++-
 drivers/ata/libata-sff.c      |  10 +-
 drivers/ata/libata-trace.c    |   2 +-
 drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c        |   5 +-
 drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c   |  14 ++-
 drivers/ata/sata_promise.c    |   2 +-
 drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c      |   7 +-
 drivers/ata/sata_sx4.c        |   2 +-
 drivers/scsi/ipr.c            |  11 +--
 drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c |  11 +--
 include/linux/libata.h        |  25 ++---
 16 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)

Comments

Damien Le Moal Jan. 4, 2023, 4:43 a.m. UTC | #1
On 12/30/22 01:59, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> Hello there,
> 
> This series contains misc libata improvements.
> 
> These improvements were identified while developing support for Command
> Duration Limits (CDL). All patches in this series (i.e. V1 of these
> patches) were orignally sent out as part of the CDL series, found here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/510732e0-7962-cf54-c22c-f1d7066895f5@opensource.wdc.com/T/
> 
> However, as these improvements are completely unrelated to CDL, they can
> be merged independently, and should not need to wait for other patches.

Applied the series to for-6.3. Patch 1 had a small conflict that I fixed
up. Thanks !

> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Niklas
> 
> 
> Changes since V1:
> -Added missing chain sign-off (in addition to author sign-off).
> -Picked up tags from John.
> -Rephrased commit message for patch 1/7 as suggested by John.
> -Rephrased commit subject for patch 3/7 to more clearly hightlight
>  that this is simply an improvement, and not strictly a bug fix.
> 
> Damien Le Moal (2):
>   ata: libata: simplify qc_fill_rtf port operation interface
>   ata: libata-scsi: improve ata_scsiop_maint_in()
> 
> Niklas Cassel (5):
>   ata: scsi: rename flag ATA_QCFLAG_FAILED to ATA_QCFLAG_EH
>   ata: libata: read the shared status for successful NCQ commands once
>   ata: libata: respect successfully completed commands during errors
>   ata: libata: move NCQ related ATA_DFLAGs
>   ata: libata-scsi: do not overwrite SCSI ML and status bytes
> 
>  drivers/ata/acard-ahci.c      |   8 +-
>  drivers/ata/libahci.c         | 171 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  drivers/ata/libata-core.c     |  12 +--
>  drivers/ata/libata-eh.c       |  22 ++---
>  drivers/ata/libata-sata.c     |   7 +-
>  drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c     |  11 ++-
>  drivers/ata/libata-sff.c      |  10 +-
>  drivers/ata/libata-trace.c    |   2 +-
>  drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c        |   5 +-
>  drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c   |  14 ++-
>  drivers/ata/sata_promise.c    |   2 +-
>  drivers/ata/sata_sil24.c      |   7 +-
>  drivers/ata/sata_sx4.c        |   2 +-
>  drivers/scsi/ipr.c            |  11 +--
>  drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c |  11 +--
>  include/linux/libata.h        |  25 ++---
>  16 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
>
Niklas Cassel Jan. 4, 2023, 10:12 a.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:43:54PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 12/30/22 01:59, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > Hello there,
> > 
> > This series contains misc libata improvements.
> > 
> > These improvements were identified while developing support for Command
> > Duration Limits (CDL). All patches in this series (i.e. V1 of these
> > patches) were orignally sent out as part of the CDL series, found here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/510732e0-7962-cf54-c22c-f1d7066895f5@opensource.wdc.com/T/
> > 
> > However, as these improvements are completely unrelated to CDL, they can
> > be merged independently, and should not need to wait for other patches.
> 
> Applied the series to for-6.3. Patch 1 had a small conflict that I fixed
> up. Thanks !

I had a look at the SHA1 for this patch in your tree, and it looks good.

However, patches 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 7/7 seem to miss your chain sign-off.


Kind regards,
Niklas
Niklas Cassel Jan. 4, 2023, 10:16 a.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 11:12:29AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:43:54PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > On 12/30/22 01:59, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > > Hello there,
> > > 
> > > This series contains misc libata improvements.
> > > 
> > > These improvements were identified while developing support for Command
> > > Duration Limits (CDL). All patches in this series (i.e. V1 of these
> > > patches) were orignally sent out as part of the CDL series, found here:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/510732e0-7962-cf54-c22c-f1d7066895f5@opensource.wdc.com/T/
> > > 
> > > However, as these improvements are completely unrelated to CDL, they can
> > > be merged independently, and should not need to wait for other patches.
> > 
> > Applied the series to for-6.3. Patch 1 had a small conflict that I fixed
> > up. Thanks !
> 
> I had a look at the SHA1 for this patch in your tree, and it looks good.
> 
> However, patches 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 7/7 seem to miss your chain sign-off.

Is this perhaps because checkpatch complains if the same sign-off exists
twice on the same patch?

Not sure if this should be ignored or not...
To me, it seems more important to keep a record of the chain,
than to keep checkpatch happy, but I could be wrong here..


Kind regards,
Niklas
Damien Le Moal Jan. 4, 2023, 12:37 p.m. UTC | #4
On 1/4/23 19:16, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 11:12:29AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:43:54PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> On 12/30/22 01:59, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>>>> Hello there,
>>>>
>>>> This series contains misc libata improvements.
>>>>
>>>> These improvements were identified while developing support for Command
>>>> Duration Limits (CDL). All patches in this series (i.e. V1 of these
>>>> patches) were orignally sent out as part of the CDL series, found here:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/510732e0-7962-cf54-c22c-f1d7066895f5@opensource.wdc.com/T/
>>>>
>>>> However, as these improvements are completely unrelated to CDL, they can
>>>> be merged independently, and should not need to wait for other patches.
>>>
>>> Applied the series to for-6.3. Patch 1 had a small conflict that I fixed
>>> up. Thanks !
>>
>> I had a look at the SHA1 for this patch in your tree, and it looks good.
>>
>> However, patches 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 7/7 seem to miss your chain sign-off.
> 
> Is this perhaps because checkpatch complains if the same sign-off exists
> twice on the same patch?
> 
> Not sure if this should be ignored or not...
> To me, it seems more important to keep a record of the chain,
> than to keep checkpatch happy, but I could be wrong here..

I do not sign again patches that already have my SoB. linux-next build bot
will complain if I forget signing patches I apply, but it does not seem
that the order matters... Not entirely certain about the correct practice
with that though.

> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Niklas