On 2021-06-15 16:07, Can Guo wrote:
On 2021-06-15 15:56, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
If scsi added it into its error command list and wakes-up scsi_eh
though the command is actually completed, scsi_eh will invoke
eh_abort_handler and the symptom will be duplicated, I think
Otherwise, is there anyone who know how to guarantee the coherency?
scsi_times_out() guarantees that -
300 /*
301 * Set the command to complete first in order to prevent a real
302 * completion from releasing the command while error handling
303 * is using it. If the command was already completed, then the
304 * lower level driver beat the timeout handler, and it is safe
305 * to return without escalating error recovery.
306 *
307 * If timeout handling lost the race to a real completion, the
308 * block layer may ignore that due to a fake timeout injection,
309 * so return RESET_TIMER to allow error handling another shot
310 * at this command.
311 */
312 if (test_and_set_bit(SCMD_STATE_COMPLETE, &scmd->state))
313 return BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER;
Please read above comments.
Can Guo.
In 5.13 kernel, it is scsi_print_command(cmd) in ufshcd_abort(),
while in
5.12 and earlier kernel, it is scsi_print_command(hba->lrb[tag].cmd).
Which kernel are you using here?
Thanks,
Can Guo.
Thank you for your information. I'm seeing 5.4.
Yes, for null pointer, you're right.
Then, what do you think?
In the situation I told, is there still the possibility that I
suggested?
You can make the code change to that line in your project same as 5.13.
Thanks,
Can Guo.
Thanks.
Kiwoong Kim
