Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: Put SCSI host after remove it

[cang]

On 2019-12-16 05:55, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2019-12-14 14:24, cang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > How do you think if I replace my patch with below one?
> > In this way, you can also move blk_cleanup_queue() behind
> > cancel_work_sync(eh_work).
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > index b5966fa..bd4ae75 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -8251,15 +8251,17 @@ void ufshcd_remove(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufs_bsg_remove(hba);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufs_sysfs_remove_nodes(hba->dev);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ scsi_remove_host(hba->host);
> > -ÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* disable interrupts */
> > -ÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufshcd_disable_intr(hba, hba->intr_mask);
> > -ÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufshcd_hba_stop(hba, true);
> > -
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufshcd_exit_clk_scaling(hba);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufshcd_exit_clk_gating(hba);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (ufshcd_is_clkscaling_supported(hba))
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ device_remove_file(hba->dev,
> > &hba->clk_scaling.enable_attr);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ cancel_work_sync(&hba->eeh_work);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ cancel_work_sync(&hba->eh_work);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* disable interrupts */
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufshcd_disable_intr(hba, hba->intr_mask);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufshcd_hba_stop(hba, true);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufshcd_hba_exit(hba);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ ufshcd_dealloc_host(hba);
> > Â}
> > ÂEXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ufshcd_remove);
>
> Hi Can,
>
> To which kernel tree does the above patch apply? I'm asking this 
> because
> I don't see the recently added blk_cleanup_queue() calls in the above
> patch. Please start from Martin's latest scsi-queue branch when
> preparing SCSI patches.
>
> Additionally, is it on purpose that there is no scsi_host_put() call in
> the above code? I'd like to keep that call because without that call a
> memory leak will occur when unloading the ufshcd-core kernel driver.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.


Hi Bart,

This is applied to 5.5/scsi-queue. The two changes I patsed from you are
not merged yet, I am still doing code review to them, so there is no
blk_cleanup_queue() calls in my code base. I am just saying you may move
your blk_cleanup_queue() calls below cancel_work_sync(&hba->eh_work) if
my change applies. How do you think?

scsi_host_put() was there before but explicitly removed by
afa3dfd42d205b106787476647735aa1de1a5d02. I agree with you, without this
change, there is memory leak.

Thanks,

Can Guo.