2015-03-10 19:20 GMT+09:00 Gilad Broner <gbroner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> +static bool inject_cmd_hang_tr(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>> +{
>>> + int tag;
>>> +
>>> + tag = find_first_bit(&hba->outstanding_reqs, hba->nutrs);
>>> + if (tag == hba->nutrs)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + __clear_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs);
>>> + hba->lrb[tag].cmd = NULL;
>>> + __clear_bit(tag, &hba->lrb_in_use);
>>
>> hba->lrb_in_use is a bitmap set by test_and_set_bit_lock(). So
>> this should be cleared by clear_bit_unlock().
>
> You are correct. Thanks.
>
>>
>> And as soon as the bit corresponds to this slot in hba->lrb_in_use is
>> cleared, this slot could be reused. But if the request corresponds
>> to the slot is not completed yet, it could sacrifice the new request,
>> too. So should we only inject into the commands which have been
>> completed like this?
>
> Please note that we only clear the bit in hba->lrb_in_use. scsi_done is
> not called for this request. Therefore, the tag is not yet free in the
> block layer and next calls for queuecommand will not pass down this tag to
> be used in the UFS driver. So there is no danger of a new request being
> sacrificed.
OK, I see there is no danger as far as the commands are comming
through queuecommand(). But what about the query requests?
PATCH 1/4 in this series has added ioctl interface for query
request which also acquires a tag in hba->lrb_in_use through
ufshcd_get_dev_cmd_tag(). Although it is very difficult to
happen, is it possible for new query requests to be clashed by
inject_cmd_hang_tr() in the same way I described earlier?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
