[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5b77c25f-3cc7-f90b-fcd7-dd4c1e2f46d2@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 18:39:59 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: cang@...eaurora.org
Cc: asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
rnayak@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@...opsys.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
Venkat Gopalakrishnan <venkatg@...eaurora.org>,
Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: Put SCSI host after remove it
On 2019-12-15 17:34, cang@...eaurora.org wrote:
> This is applied to 5.5/scsi-queue. The two changes I patsed from you are
> not merged yet, I am still doing code review to them, so there is no
> blk_cleanup_queue() calls in my code base. I am just saying you may move
> your blk_cleanup_queue() calls below cancel_work_sync(&hba->eh_work) if
> my change applies. How do you think?
>
> scsi_host_put() was there before but explicitly removed by
> afa3dfd42d205b106787476647735aa1de1a5d02. I agree with you, without this
> change, there is memory leak.
Hi Can,
Since your patch restores a call that was removed earlier, please
consider adding a Fixes: tag to your patch.
Please also have a look at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mkp/scsi.git/log/?h=5.6/scsi-queue.
As one can see my patches that introduce blk_cleanup_queue() and
blk_mq_free_tag_set() calls have already been queued on Martin's
5.6/scsi-queue branch.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists