lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/9] scsi: ufs: Complete the cmd before returning in queuecommand
On 2021-06-12 23:50, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 6/12/21 12:38 AM, Can Guo wrote:
>> On 2021-06-12 04:52, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 6/9/21 9:43 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>>>> @@ -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 for the background information. However, this approach sounds
> cumbersome to me. For PM requests, please change the UFS driver such
> that calling scsi_done() for aborted requests is postponed until error
> handling has finished and delete the code shown above from
> ufshcd_queuecommand().

I will delete the code in next version, since I believe the hba_state
checks before the code is enough to achieve the same purpose, so this
code becomes redundant.

Thanks,

Can Guo.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-13 15:30    [W:2.607 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site