From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanley Chu Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] scsi: ufs: fix broken hba->outstanding_tasks Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:38:26 +0800 Message-ID: <1566221906.15377.3.camel@mtkswgap22> References: <1563947418-16394-1-git-send-email-stanley.chu@mediatek.com> <1564044737.7235.9.camel@mtkswgap22> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1564044737.7235.9.camel@mtkswgap22> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-mediatek" Errors-To: linux-mediatek-bounces+glpam-linux-mediatek=m.gmane.org-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org To: Avri Altman Cc: "linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "martin.petersen-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "marc.w.gonzalez-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org" , "andy.teng-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "chun-hung.wu-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "kuohong.wang-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "evgreen-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org" , "linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "peter.wang-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "alim.akhtar-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org" , "matthias.bgg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "pedrom.sousa-HKixBCOQz3hWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "beanhuo-AL4WhLSQfzjQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org Hi Avri, On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 16:52 +0800, Stanley Chu wrote: > Hi Avri, > > On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 07:54 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > Stanly, > > > > > > > > Currently bits in hba->outstanding_tasks are cleared only after their > > > corresponding task management commands are successfully done by > > > __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(). > > > > > > If timeout happens in a task management command, its corresponding > > > bit in hba->outstanding_tasks will not be cleared until next task > > > management command with the same tag used successfully finishes. > > I'm sorry - I still don't understand why you just can't release the tag either way, > > Just like we do in device management queries tags, > > Instead of adding all this unnecessary code. > > > > I will not object to your series - > > just step down and let other people review you patches. Sorry for late response due to these busy days. I just got your point and agreed with you: previous proposal may be too tricky. Simple always wins. So I will provide a short solution in next version. Many thanks! Stanley