[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250516083812.3894396-1-ping.gao@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 16:38:12 +0800
From: "ping.gao" <ping.gao@...sung.com>
To: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com, bvanassche@....org,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
peter.wang@...iatek.com, minwoo.im@...sung.com,
manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org, chenyuan0y@...il.com,
ping.gao@...sung.com, cw9316.lee@...sung.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: mcq: delete ufshcd_release_scsi_cmd in
ufshcd_mcq_abort
after ufs UFS_ABORT_TASK process successfully , host will generate
mcq irq for abort tag with response OCS_ABORTED
ufshcd_compl_one_cqe ->
ufshcd_release_scsi_cmd
But in ufshcd_mcq_abort already do ufshcd_release_scsi_cmd, this means
__ufshcd_release will be done twice.
This means hba->clk_gating.active_reqs also will be decrease twice, it
will be negtive, so delete ufshcd_release_scsi_cmd in ufshcd_mcq_abort
function.
static void __ufshcd_release(struct ufs_hba *hba)
{
if (!ufshcd_is_clkgating_allowed(hba))
return;
hba->clk_gating.active_reqs--;
if (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs < 0) {
panic("ufs abnormal active_reqs!!!!!!");
}
...
}
Signed-off-by: ping.gao <ping.gao@...sung.com>
---
drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
index f1294c29f484..2106c63db5ca 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
@@ -713,10 +713,5 @@ int ufshcd_mcq_abort(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
return FAILED;
}
- spin_lock_irqsave(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
- if (ufshcd_cmd_inflight(lrbp->cmd))
- ufshcd_release_scsi_cmd(hba, lrbp);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
-
return SUCCESS;
}
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists