[PATCH V3 10/15] scsi: aha152x: use sg helper to operate scatterlist

[Finn Thain]

Hi Ming,

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Ming Lei wrote:

> Use the scatterlist iterators and remove direct indexing of the
> scatterlist array.
> 
> This way allows us to pre-allocate one small scatterlist, which can be
> chained with one runtime allocated scatterlist if the pre-allocated one
> isn't enough for the whole request.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei at redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/aha152x.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/aha152x.c b/drivers/scsi/aha152x.c
> index 97872838b983..bc9d12aa7880 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/aha152x.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/aha152x.c
> @@ -2033,7 +2033,7 @@ static void datai_run(struct Scsi_Host *shpnt)
>  				    CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffers_residual > 0) {
>  					/* advance to next buffer */
>  					CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffers_residual--;
> -					CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer++;
> +					CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer = sg_next(CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer);
>  					CURRENT_SC->SCp.ptr           = SG_ADDRESS(CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer);
>  					CURRENT_SC->SCp.this_residual = CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer->length;
>  				}
> @@ -2139,7 +2139,7 @@ static void datao_run(struct Scsi_Host *shpnt)
>  		if(CURRENT_SC->SCp.this_residual==0 && CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffers_residual>0) {
>  			/* advance to next buffer */
>  			CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffers_residual--;
> -			CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer++;
> +			CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer = sg_next(CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer);
>  			CURRENT_SC->SCp.ptr           = SG_ADDRESS(CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer);
>  			CURRENT_SC->SCp.this_residual = CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer->length;
>  		}
> @@ -2160,20 +2160,29 @@ static void datao_end(struct Scsi_Host *shpnt)
>  	if(TESTLO(DMASTAT, DFIFOEMP)) {
>  		int data_count = (DATA_LEN - scsi_get_resid(CURRENT_SC)) -
>  			GETSTCNT();

data_count appears to be the number of bytes remaining in the FIFO. (I 
have to infer that much from the surrounding code. I don't have 
documentation for this controller.)

Some comments would be nice.

> +		struct scatterlist *sg = scsi_sglist(CURRENT_SC);
> +		int left, i = 0;
>  
>  		CMD_INC_RESID(CURRENT_SC, data_count);
>  

Apparently the aim is to increase the residual by the number of bytes that 
will never leave the FIFO. Above we can see that increase performed by 
scsi_set_resid() and now the same has to be done to the SCp struct.

>  		data_count -= CURRENT_SC->SCp.ptr -
>  			SG_ADDRESS(CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer);

Here, data_count effectively has SCp.this_residual subtracted from it.

> -		while(data_count>0) {
> -			CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer--;
> -			CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffers_residual++;
> -			data_count -= CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer->length;
> -		}

So far, so good.

> -		CURRENT_SC->SCp.ptr = SG_ADDRESS(CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer) -
> -			data_count;
> -		CURRENT_SC->SCp.this_residual = CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer->length +
> -			data_count;

This is like saying ptr = buffer + residual, which is bogus. This must be 
an old bug, but we never hit it because the FIFO is always empty when we 
get a DISCONNECT message. Probably because every SG segment has a length 
that is a multiple of 128 bytes. (Juergen?)

> +
> +		left = CURRENT_SC->transfersize - data_count;

Are you sure about that? Perhaps you meant to write,
		left = scsi_bufflen(CURRENT_SC) - scsi_get_resid(CURRENT_SC);

Is there a better name for this variable? Maybe 'sent' or 'bytes_sent'?

> +		for (i = 0; left > 0 && !sg_is_last(sg); i++, sg = sg_next(sg)) {
> +			if (left < sg->length)
> +				break;
> +			left -= sg->length;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (data_count > 0) {
> +			CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffers_residual += i;

Shouldn't that be,
			CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffers_residual = i;

> +			CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer = sg;
> +
> +			CURRENT_SC->SCp.ptr = SG_ADDRESS(CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer) + left;
> +			CURRENT_SC->SCp.this_residual = CURRENT_SC->SCp.buffer->length -
> +				left;
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	SETPORT(SXFRCTL0, CH1|CLRCH1|CLRSTCNT);
> 

BTW, datao_run() seems to guarantee that the FIFO will never contain more 
than min(128, SCp.this_residual) so I suspect that this code can be 
simplified. That's just BTW. I wouldn't attempt to optimize this branch as 
it will only run when the FIFO is not empty, if ever. So I'd prefer 
clarity. Besides, I don't have the hardware to test it on.

--