Re: [RFC PATCH] ata: pata_macio: Use WARN instead of BUG
From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Date: 2024-08-19 11:01:55
Also in:
linux-ide, lkml
On 8/19/24 19:19, Michael Ellerman wrote:
The overflow/underflow conditions in pata_macio_qc_prep() should never happen. But if they do there's no need to kill the system entirely, a WARN and failing the IO request should be sufficient and might allow the system to keep running. Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> --- drivers/ata/pata_macio.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Not sure if AC_ERR_OTHER is the right error code to use?
Given that this would trigger if the command split has is buggy, I think that AC_ERR_SYSTEM would be better. Can you resend with the change and no "RFC" ?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_macio.c b/drivers/ata/pata_macio.c index eaffa510de49..552e3ac0d391 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/pata_macio.c +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_macio.c@@ -554,7 +554,8 @@ static enum ata_completion_errors pata_macio_qc_prep(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) while (sg_len) { /* table overflow should never happen */ - BUG_ON (pi++ >= MAX_DCMDS); + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pi >= MAX_DCMDS)) + return AC_ERR_OTHER; len = (sg_len < MAX_DBDMA_SEG) ? sg_len : MAX_DBDMA_SEG; table->command = cpu_to_le16(write ? OUTPUT_MORE: INPUT_MORE);@@ -566,11 +567,13 @@ static enum ata_completion_errors pata_macio_qc_prep(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) addr += len; sg_len -= len; ++table; + ++pi; } } /* Should never happen according to Tejun */ - BUG_ON(!pi); + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pi)) + return AC_ERR_OTHER; /* Convert the last command to an input/output */ table--;
-- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research