Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Jun 2021 21:30:27 +0800 | From | Can Guo <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |