Re: [PATCH 2/4] mvsas: Deadlocks meet when TMF tasks issue

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 14:16 +0800, Ying Chu wrote:
>> >From 58f754f51fced4a39adcf708319e3de946a0d61a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Andy <ayan@marvell.com>
>> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:31:43 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] bug fix: deal lock 
>>
>> TMF task need be issued with Interrupt Disabled, or Deadlock may take place.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ying Chu <jasonchu@marvell.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Yan <ayan@marvell.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ke Wei <kewei@marvell.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c |    2 +-
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c b/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c
>> index 318ec01..cb002ef 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c
>> @@ -1446,7 +1446,7 @@ static int mvs_exec_internal_tmf_task(struct domain_device *dev,
>>  		task->timer.expires = jiffies + MVS_TASK_TIMEOUT*HZ;
>>  		add_timer(&task->timer);
>>  
>> -		res = mvs_task_exec(task, 1, GFP_KERNEL, NULL, 0, 1, tmf);
>> +		res = mvs_task_exec(task, 1, GFP_KERNEL, NULL, 1, 1, tmf);
> 
> That eliminates the last user of the unlocked case.
> 
> Can't we just drop the conditional lock from mvs_task_exec() now
> instead?  It will make the code much cleaner.

Agreed...