On 12/10/19 6:47 AM, Martin Wilck wrote: > blk_mq_request_started() returns true for requests in MQ_RQ_COMPLETE > state. Is this really an equivalent condition? > > That said, the condition in the current code is sort of strange, as > it's equivalent to !(sp->completed && sp->aborted). I'm wondering what > it means if a command is both completed and aborted. Naïvely thinking > (and inferring from the current code) this condition could never be > met, and thus its negation would hold for every command. Perhaps Quinn > meant "!(sp->completed || sp->aborted)" ? Hi Martin, The only caller of qla2x00_abort_srb() is qla2x00_abort_all_cmds(). That function should only be called after completion interrupts have been disabled. In other words, I don't think that we have to worry about blk_mq_request_started() encountering the MQ_RQ_COMPLETE state. No request should have that state when qla2x00_abort_all_cmds() is called. Bart.
