linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH] ufs:mcq:Fixing Error Output for ufshcd_try_to_abort_task in ufshcd_mcq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20240523235613.1103161-1-cw9316.lee@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 08:56:13 +0900
From: Chanwoo Lee <cw9316.lee@...sung.com>
To: cw9316.lee@...sung.com
Cc: James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
	avri.altman@....com, bvanassche@....org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
	powen.kao@...iatek.com, quic_cang@...cinc.com, quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com,
	stanley.chu@...iatek.com, yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] ufs:mcq:Fixing Error Output for
 ufshcd_try_to_abort_task in ufshcd_mcq_abort

On 5/23/24 22:43, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>On 5/22/24 17:22, Chanwoo Lee wrote:
>> An error unrelated to ufshcd_try_to_abort_task is being output and
>> can cause confusion. So, I modified it to output the result of abort
>> fail. This modification was similarly revised by referring to the
>> ufshcd_abort function.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Lee <cw9316.lee@...sung.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c | 4 +++-
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>> index 005d63ab1f44..fc24d1af1fe8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>> @@ -667,9 +667,11 @@ int ufshcd_mcq_abort(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>>   	 * in the completion queue either. Query the device to see if
>>   	 * the command is being processed in the device.
>>   	 */
>> -	if (ufshcd_try_to_abort_task(hba, tag)) {
>> +	err = ufshcd_try_to_abort_task(hba, tag);
>> +	if (err) {
>>   		dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: device abort failed %d\n", __func__, err);
>>   		lrbp->req_abort_skip = true;
>> +		err = FAILED;
>>   		goto out;
>>   	}
>
>Why does the word "Fixing" occur in the title of this patch? I think
>that this patch does not affect the value returned by
>ufshcd_mcq_abort(). From the start of that function:
>
>int err = FAILED;
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bart.

I thought this patch would be appropriate to "fix" the following log.
  * dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: device abort failed %d\n", __func__, err);
If "Fixing" is not appropriate, could you suggest another word?

Thanks,

Chanwoo Lee.