On 11/24/21 4:03 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:57, Bart Van Assche wrote:+/* Release the resources allocated for processing a SCSI command. */ +static void ufshcd_release_scsi_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba, + struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp) +{ + struct scsi_cmnd *cmd = lrbp->cmd; + + scsi_dma_unmap(cmd); + lrbp->cmd = NULL; /* Mark the command as completed. */ + ufshcd_release(hba); + ufshcd_clk_scaling_update_busy(hba); +}That seems to leave a gap in the handling of tracing. Wouldn't we be better served to tweak the monitoring code in __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl() and then use __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl()? i.e. result = ufshcd_transfer_rsp_status(hba, lrbp); if (unlikely(!result && ufshcd_should_inform_monitor(hba, lrbp))) ufshcd_update_monitor(hba, lrbp);
Which gap are you referring to? ufshcd_abort() only calls ufshcd_release_scsi_cmd() after ufshcd_try_to_abort_task() succeeded. That means that the command has not completed and hence that ufshcd_update_monitor() must not be called. Bart.
