From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oa1-f54.google.com (mail-oa1-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B5DA41206 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:44:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-oa1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-20422793decso20825fac.3 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:44:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1703090664; x=1703695464; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4gAlnbJFlIMBW8/Qv5AjI+o81Qb92xZ1s//F4Mf6ThY=; b=uL1cmSB4vEVG7nuAQ6xkdyANcXv/56rQRITwfS/YKWSb3ow/O+QVLB16B03qkjnpug QoqyU+/Bq3NE/f88Jw3bYdsDhmjeb6hRbQSVpx7Kcp/34/oBn+y2LR68FL+ryJTzhDkx t3tsvdJlIFz8M+NIuH4wIq11pcgfeNDVyFKewd2SXUqq6jfUFJT2zQAeSwOIJGIy9nRu rYv6S5xUbT3mhpXQRLR3TxYGObgzkUdvNixoEl2T53Qe5umfiT6fJUrg0EVVfKV69qhD 9Tt2yP3A68xDQWN+nvstLa/P0AiQimMtALOBB0XdnxfK87lDD/mXeVtv2ewC7GcrscCl StMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz1BHtpJhT/S5IRjVJZh9Si3JgasXOkmlxvMU33umtU2bRevgcz yyDb4HVmcjbpXQ2hsN9AcrI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF1IqWAO6Hew0JJiUA/R4X3R/VmjIuf4ksmq7GJxFl1fO2BH3uivNiqRFVklmfBk1lhHQ7vJQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3d95:b0:203:7bef:1691 with SMTP id lm21-20020a0568703d9500b002037bef1691mr12279821oab.109.1703090663806; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:44:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2620:0:1000:8411:b2aa:4964:8bfa:71c? ([2620:0:1000:8411:b2aa:4964:8bfa:71c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b16-20020a63cf50000000b005aa800c149bsm7114pgj.39.2023.12.20.08.44.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:44:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:44:21 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: Remove the ufshcd_hba_exit() call from ufshcd_async_scan() Content-Language: en-US To: Manivannan Sadhasivam Cc: "Martin K . Petersen" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Mentz , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Stanley Jhu , Avri Altman , Can Guo , Asutosh Das , Bean Huo , "Bao D. Nguyen" , Arthur Simchaev References: <20231218225229.2542156-1-bvanassche@acm.org> <20231218225229.2542156-3-bvanassche@acm.org> <20231220144813.GH3544@thinkpad> From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20231220144813.GH3544@thinkpad> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/20/23 06:48, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 02:52:15PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> Calling ufshcd_hba_exit() from a function that is called asynchronously >> from ufshcd_init() is wrong because this triggers multiple race >> conditions. Instead of calling ufshcd_hba_exit(), log an error message. > > This also means that during failure, resources will not be powered OFF. IMO, a > justification is needed why it is OK to left them powered ON. I have never seen ufshcd_async_scan() fail other than during hardware bringup. Has anyone else ever observed a ufshcd_async_scan() failure? >> Reported-by: Daniel Mentz >> Fixes: 1d337ec2f35e ("ufs: improve init sequence") > > No need to backport this patch? Isn't the "Fixes:" tag sufficient? I don't think that it it necessary to add a "Cc: stable" tag if a "Fixes:" tag is present. Thanks, Bart.