[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <80926df7e3e41088e59ce5e0dbdec28a@codeaurora.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 15:38:14 +0800
From: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
hongwus@...eaurora.org, ziqichen@...eaurora.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....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>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] scsi: ufs: Complete the cmd before returning in
queuecommand
On 2021-06-12 04:52, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 6/9/21 9:43 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> index 0c9d2ee..7dc0fda 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> @@ -2758,6 +2758,16 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host
>> *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + if (unlikely(test_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs))) {
>> + if (hba->wl_pm_op_in_progress) {
>> + set_host_byte(cmd, DID_BAD_TARGET);
>> + cmd->scsi_done(cmd);
>> + } else {
>> + err = SCSI_MLQUEUE_HOST_BUSY;
>> + }
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> hba->req_abort_count = 0;
>>
>> err = ufshcd_hold(hba, true);
>> @@ -2768,15 +2778,6 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host
>> *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>> WARN_ON(ufshcd_is_clkgating_allowed(hba) &&
>> (hba->clk_gating.state != CLKS_ON));
>>
>> - if (unlikely(test_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs))) {
>> - if (hba->wl_pm_op_in_progress)
>> - set_host_byte(cmd, DID_BAD_TARGET);
>> - else
>> - err = SCSI_MLQUEUE_HOST_BUSY;
>> - ufshcd_release(hba);
>> - goto out;
>> - }
>> -
>> lrbp = &hba->lrb[tag];
>> WARN_ON(lrbp->cmd);
>> lrbp->cmd = cmd;
>
> Can the code under "if (unlikely(test_bit(tag,
> &hba->outstanding_reqs)))" be deleted instead of moving it? I don't
> think that it is useful to verify whether the block layer tag allocator
> works correctly. Additionally, I'm not aware of any similar code in any
> other SCSI LLD.
>
ufshcd_abort() aborts PM requests differently from other requests -
it simply evicts the cmd from lrbp [1], schedules error handler and
returns SUCCESS (the reason why I am doing it this way is in patch #8).
After ufshcd_abort() returns, the tag shall be released, the logic
here is to prevent subsequent cmds re-use the lrbp [1] before error
handler recovers the device and host.
Thanks,
Can Guo.
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists