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;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: RE: [PATCH v32 4/4] scsi: ufs: Add HPB 2.0 support
Reply-To: daejun7.park@samsung.com
Sender: Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>
From:   Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@wdc.com>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "asutoshd@codeaurora.org" <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        "stanley.chu@mediatek.com" <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        "cang@codeaurora.org" <cang@codeaurora.org>,
        "bvanassche@acm.org" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        "huobean@gmail.com" <huobean@gmail.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
CC:     "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        JinHwan Park <jh.i.park@samsung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@samsung.com>,
        Sung-Jun Park <sungjun07.park@samsung.com>,
        Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@samsung.com>,
        Dukhyun Kwon <d_hyun.kwon@samsung.com>,
        Keoseong Park <keosung.park@samsung.com>,
        Jaemyung Lee <jaemyung.lee@samsung.com>,
        Jieon Seol <jieon.seol@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR04MB6564B4E309188E320AB258E6FC479@BL0PR04MB6564.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20210428003709epcms2p2e183e74e64b388d5feb5dd45396393dc@epcms2p2>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:37:09 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 102P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <BL0PR04MB6564B4E309188E320AB258E6FC479@BL0PR04MB6564.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
        <20210331011526epcms2p37684869a9781d1eb45bfcbfe9babd217@epcms2p3>
        <20210331011839epcms2p45d3d059fcd9e85a548014a79c3f388bc@epcms2p4>
        <CGME20210331011526epcms2p37684869a9781d1eb45bfcbfe9babd217@epcms2p2>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Avri,

>> @@ -1653,6 +2148,7 @@ void ufshpb_destroy_lu(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct
>> scsi_device *sdev)
>> 
>>         ufshpb_cancel_jobs(hpb);
>> 
>> +       ufshpb_pre_req_mempool_destroy(hpb);
>>         ufshpb_destroy_region_tbl(hpb);
>> 
>>         kmem_cache_destroy(hpb->map_req_cache);
>> @@ -1692,6 +2188,7 @@ static void ufshpb_hpb_lu_prepared(struct ufs_hba
>> *hba)
>>                         ufshpb_set_state(hpb, HPB_PRESENT);
>>                         if ((hpb->lu_pinned_end - hpb->lu_pinned_start) > 0)
>>                                 queue_work(ufshpb_wq, &hpb->map_work);
>> +                       ufshpb_issue_umap_all_req(hpb);
>>                 } else {
>>                         dev_err(hba->dev, "destroy HPB lu %d\n", hpb->lun);
>>                         ufshpb_destroy_lu(hba, sdev);
>Here in lu_prepare, ufshpb_remove can be called without destroy_lu,
>and while there are jobs running.

If init_success is false, ufshpb_destroy_lu and ufshpb_remove are called.
If init_success is true, ufshpb_destroy_lu and ufshpb_remove are not called
in this function.

So I think it is not problem.

Thanks,
Daejun

>How about calling destroy_lu as part of ufshpb_remove?
>Calling it again when __scsi_remove_device, hostdata is already null so it won't matter.
> 
>Again, only after we know where all this is going to.
> 
>Thanks,
>Avri
> 
> 
>