Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: cang=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:57:27 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     jaegeuk@kernel.org, asutoshd@codeaurora.org,
        nguyenb@codeaurora.org, hongwus@codeaurora.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthumma@codeaurora.org>,
        Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@gmail.com>,
        Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@codeaurora.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] scsi: ufs: Fix wrong Task Tag used in task
 management request UPIUs
In-Reply-To: <8351747f-0ec9-3c66-1bdf-b4b73fcee698@acm.org>
References: <1611807365-35513-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <1611807365-35513-4-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <8351747f-0ec9-3c66-1bdf-b4b73fcee698@acm.org>
Message-ID: <f0d1c6a196a044198647df6ca4b06efb@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-01-29 11:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 1/27/21 8:16 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>> In __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(), it is not right to use hba->nutrs + 
>> req->tag as
>> the Task Tag in one TMR UPIU. Directly use req->tag as the Task Tag.
> 
> Why is the current code wrong and why is this patch the proper fix?
> Please explain this in the patch description.
> 

req->tag is the tag allocated for one TMR, no?

>> +	 * blk_get_request() used here is only to get a free tag.
> 
> Please fix the word order in this comment ("blk_get_request() is used
> here only to get a free tag").

Sure.

> 
>> +	ufshcd_release(hba);
>>  	blk_put_request(req);
>> 
>> -	ufshcd_release(hba);
> 
> An explanation for this change is missing from the patch description.
> 

This is just for symmetric coding since this change is almost
re-writing the whole func - at the entrence it calls blk_get_request()
and ufshcd_hold(), so before exit it'd be good to call ufshcd_release()
before blk_put_request(). If you think this single line change worths
a separate patch, I can split it out in next version.

Thanks,
Can Guo.

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.