Re: SDHCI Regression with 6ce3dd6eec11 ("blk-mq: issue directly if hw queue isn't busy in case of 'none'")

[Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:45:41PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 08/21/2018 04:03 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > On 21/08/18 15:37, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > I bisected some kind of SDHCI regression to commit 6ce3dd6eec11 ("blk-mq:
> > > issue directly if hw queue isn't busy in case of 'none'") causing dumps
> > > below and one or more systemd-udevd processes being in uninterruptible sleep
> > > state preventing safe reboot/shutdown.
> > > 
> > > This is from an Intel Baytrail based tablet with integrated eMMC but my
> > > up-to-date Debian/testing rootfs (with systemd) is on USB stick.
> > > 
> > > It doesn't revert cleanly on today's head 778a33959a8a but issue is gone if
> > > I go to a commit before 6ce3dd6eec11 and occurs at 6ce3dd6eec11.
> > 
> > This was discussed here:
> > 
> > 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=153334717506073&w=2
> > 
> > Coincidentally, I just sent the fix patch:
> > 
> > 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=153485326025301&w=2
> > 
> Cool, it fixed my regression. I tested both on top of 6ce3dd6eec11 and head
> 778a33959a8a. Maybe you would like to add into your patch another fixes tag
> and my tested by:
> 
> Fixes: 6ce3dd6eec11 ("blk-mq: issue directly if hw queue isn't busy in case
> of 'none'")

If you read the above links carefully, you'd see it is wrong to add the tag of
'Fixes: 6ce3dd6eec11'.


Thanks,
Ming