| Message ID | 1595471649-25675-3-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix up and simplify error recovery mechanism | expand |
Hi Can, On 2020-07-23 10:34, Can Guo wrote: > The scsi_block_reqs_cnt increased in ufshcd_hold() is supposed to be > decreased back in ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way. However, if > specific ufshcd_hold/release sequences are met, it is possible that > scsi_block_reqs_cnt is increased twice but only one ungate work is > queued. To make sure scsi_block_reqs_cnt is handled by ufshcd_hold() > and > ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way, increase it only if queue_work() > returns true. > > Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org> > --- > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > index 99bd3e4..2907828 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > @@ -1611,12 +1611,12 @@ int ufshcd_hold(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool > async) > */ > /* fallthrough */ > case CLKS_OFF: > - ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba); > hba->clk_gating.state = REQ_CLKS_ON; > trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev), > hba->clk_gating.state); > - queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq, > - &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work); > + if (queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq, > + &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work)) > + ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba); > /* > * fall through to check if we should wait for this > * work to be done or not. Yes, queue_work() may fail for some reasons. We should make sure scsi_block_reqs_cnt is balanced. Your change looks good to me since it touches scsi_block_reqs_cnt only when the condition is met. Reviewed-by: Hongwu Su <hongwus@codeaurora.org>
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c index 99bd3e4..2907828 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c @@ -1611,12 +1611,12 @@ int ufshcd_hold(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool async) */ /* fallthrough */ case CLKS_OFF: - ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba); hba->clk_gating.state = REQ_CLKS_ON; trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev), hba->clk_gating.state); - queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq, - &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work); + if (queue_work(hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq, + &hba->clk_gating.ungate_work)) + ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba); /* * fall through to check if we should wait for this * work to be done or not.
The scsi_block_reqs_cnt increased in ufshcd_hold() is supposed to be decreased back in ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way. However, if specific ufshcd_hold/release sequences are met, it is possible that scsi_block_reqs_cnt is increased twice but only one ungate work is queued. To make sure scsi_block_reqs_cnt is handled by ufshcd_hold() and ufshcd_ungate_work() in a paired way, increase it only if queue_work() returns true. Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)