Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100450-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:37:01 +0100
From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Cc: Igor Pylypiv <ipylypiv@google.com>,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
	Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@cloud.ionos.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
	Xiang Chen <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>,
	Artur Paszkiewicz <artur.paszkiewicz@intel.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	TJ Adams <tadamsjr@google.com>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/7] ata: libata-sata: Factor out NCQ Priority
 configuration helpers
Message-ID: <ZfB2nTnzDqIgb65V@ryzen>
References: <20240307214418.3812290-1-ipylypiv@google.com>
 <20240307214418.3812290-2-ipylypiv@google.com>
 <ZeriaUWlhBqp4Q77@ryzen>
 <35801735-1e6a-43ef-8687-06ff04d53619@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <35801735-1e6a-43ef-8687-06ff04d53619@kernel.org>

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 03:17:43PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2024/03/08 19:03, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > 
> > Anyway, like you said, as you are now creating helper functions:
> > ata_ncq_prio_supported(), ata_ncq_prio_enabled(), ata_ncq_prio_enable()
> > these function might no longer only be called from sysfs code,
> > so it is probably a bad idea to let these functions use spin_lock_irq().
> > 
> > However, can't ata_ncq_prio_supported() and ata_ncq_prio_enabled()
> > still use a simple spin_lock(), why would they need to disable irqs?
> > 
> > Damien, you are the author of ata_ncq_prio_supported_show(), thoughts?
> 
> See above. The spin lock irq-disabling variant is needed because the port lock
> is taken from command completion context.

Yes of course, I don't know what I was thinking...