| Message ID | 20180509002812.13151-1-damien.lemoal@wdc.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | libata fixes and improvements | expand |
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:28:07AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > [resending with numbered patches in subject] > > This series introduces fixes and imrpovements of libata. > > The first patch is a comment typo fix and the second improves the handling of > ATA error status bits in ata_err_string(). > The third and fourth patches reduce libata verbosity by honoring requests quiet > flags in error handling as well as reducing the output from ata_dev_set_mode(). > > Finally, the last patch improves failed request retry handling by relying on the > scsi layer decisions for failed requests with valid sense data. > > Damien Le Moal (5): > libata: Fix comment typo in ata_eh_analyze_tf() > libata: Fix ata_err_string() > libata: Make ata_dev_set_mode() less verbose > libata: Honor RQF_QUIET flag > libata: Fix command retry decision Applied 1-5 to libata/for-4.18. Thanks.
Tejun, On 5/11/18 03:43, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:28:07AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> [resending with numbered patches in subject] >> >> This series introduces fixes and imrpovements of libata. >> >> The first patch is a comment typo fix and the second improves the handling of >> ATA error status bits in ata_err_string(). >> The third and fourth patches reduce libata verbosity by honoring requests quiet >> flags in error handling as well as reducing the output from ata_dev_set_mode(). >> >> Finally, the last patch improves failed request retry handling by relying on the >> scsi layer decisions for failed requests with valid sense data. >> >> Damien Le Moal (5): >> libata: Fix comment typo in ata_eh_analyze_tf() >> libata: Fix ata_err_string() >> libata: Make ata_dev_set_mode() less verbose >> libata: Honor RQF_QUIET flag >> libata: Fix command retry decision > > Applied 1-5 to libata/for-4.18. > > Thanks. I forgot to add a CC:stable for patch 5. I think that it is worthwhile to have that patch in stable too. What do you think ? Having the other patches in stable would be nice too, but I leave that decision to you. Thanks ! Best regards.
Hello, Damien. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:52:12PM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote: > I forgot to add a CC:stable for patch 5. I think that it is worthwhile > to have that patch in stable too. What do you think ? > Having the other patches in stable would be nice too, but I leave that > decision to you. The patches are queued for 4.18 so aren't in mainline yet. The fifth patch would be nice to backport and we can either, 1. Cherry-pick the commit into 4.17-fixes and cc stable, to push it right away. 2. Wait for the merge window and then send it to -stable. Given that we're pretty close to rc6, I'm leaning towards the latter. If that works, we can reply to the original patch posting w/ stable cc'd and refer to the commit once the merge is done. Thanks.
Tejun, On 2018/05/19 0:08, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Damien. > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:52:12PM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> I forgot to add a CC:stable for patch 5. I think that it is worthwhile >> to have that patch in stable too. What do you think ? >> Having the other patches in stable would be nice too, but I leave that >> decision to you. > > The patches are queued for 4.18 so aren't in mainline yet. The fifth > patch would be nice to backport and we can either, > > 1. Cherry-pick the commit into 4.17-fixes and cc stable, to push it > right away. > > 2. Wait for the merge window and then send it to -stable. > > Given that we're pretty close to rc6, I'm leaning towards the latter. > If that works, we can reply to the original patch posting w/ stable > cc'd and refer to the commit once the merge is done. Patch 5 fixes a useless retry for SMR disks and I have not heard of any other more serious problem related to the fix. So I guess we can wait (option 2). Thanks !