Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] scsi: ufs: Complete the cmd before returning in queuecommand

[Can Guo]

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.