On 6/23/21 9:16 PM, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2021-06-24 05:33, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 6/23/21 12:35 AM, Can Guo wrote:
>>> @@ -2737,7 +2737,7 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host
>>> *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>>> * err handler blocked for too long. So, just fail the scsi cmd
>>> * sent from PM ops, err handler can recover PM error anyways.
>>> */
>>> - if (hba->wlu_pm_op_in_progress) {
>>> + if (cmd->request->rq_flags & RQF_PM) {
>>> hba->force_reset = true;
>>> set_host_byte(cmd, DID_BAD_TARGET);
>>> cmd->scsi_done(cmd);
>>
>> I'm still concerned that the above code may trigger data corruption. I
>> prefer that the above code is removed instead of being modified.
>
> Removing the change will lead to deadlock when error handling prepare
> calls pm_runtime_get_sync().
>
> RQF_PM is only given to requests sent from power management operations,
> during which the specific device/LU is suspending/resuming, meaning no
> data transaction is ongoing. How can fast failing a PM request trigger
> data corruption?
Right, the above code only affects power management requests so there is
no risk for data corruption.
Thanks,
Bart.
