On 11/04/23 20:31, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 4/11/23 01:39, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/04/23 03:11, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> One UFS vendor asked to increase the UFS timeout from 1 s to 3 s.
>>> Another UFS vendor asked to increase the UFS timeout from 1 s to 10 s.
>>> Hence this patch that increases the UFS timeout to 10 s. This patch can
>>> cause the total timeout to exceed 20 s, the Android shutdown timeout.
>>> This is fine since the loop around ufshcd_execute_start_stop() exists to
>>> deal with unit attentions and because unit attentions are reported
>>> quickly.
>>>
>>> Fixes: dcd5b7637c6d ("scsi: ufs: Reduce the START STOP UNIT timeout")
>>
>> Did that commit (shown below) actually increase the timeout
>> because the previous commit (8f2c96420c6e) had put
>> "remaining / HZ" when it should have been just "remaining"?
>> Or am I misreading?
>>
>> So maybe it also needs a fixes tag for 8f2c96420c6e.
>
> Commit 8f2c96420c6e ("scsi: ufs: core: Reduce the power mode change timeout") changed the START STOP UNIT timeout from START_STOP_TIMEOUT into "remaining / HZ" (should have been "remaining") and hence passed a smaller value than intended to scsi_execute(). Commit dcd5b7637c6d changed the timeout from remaining / HZ into one second. Both values are too small. I'm not sure a second Fixes: tag would help since the above Fixes: tag should be sufficient to make this patch land in all relevant stable trees.
It would be better not to assume current stable trees are the only consumers of fixes. Presumably adding the extra Fixes tag does no harm.
