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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
