Re: [PATCH v2] USB:UAS:return ENODEV when submit urbs fail with device not attached.

["WeitaoWang-oc@xxxxxxxxxxx" <WeitaoWang-oc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2024/2/28 22:47, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> > I'm not sure I fully understand what your mean.
> > Whether the above code is more reasonable? If not,could you give me some
> > suggestion? Thanks for your help!
>
> You want to change uas_submit_urbs() to return the reason for
> errors, because -ENODEV needs to be handled differently. That
> is good.
> But why don't you just do
>
> return err;
>
> unconditionally? There is no point in using SCSI_MLQUEUE_DEVICE_BUSY

I got it, Thanks. New patch would like this sample:

@@ -562,9 +561,9 @@ static int uas_submit_urbs(struct scsi_cmnd *cmnd,

 	lockdep_assert_held(&devinfo->lock);
 	if (cmdinfo->state & SUBMIT_STATUS_URB) {
-		urb = uas_submit_sense_urb(cmnd, GFP_ATOMIC);
-		if (!urb)
-			return SCSI_MLQUEUE_DEVICE_BUSY;
+		err = uas_submit_sense_urb(cmnd, GFP_ATOMIC);
+		if (err)
+			return err;
 		cmdinfo->state &= ~SUBMIT_STATUS_URB;
 	}
@@ -582,7 +581,7 @@ static int uas_submit_urbs(struct scsi_cmnd *cmnd,
 		if (err) {
 			usb_unanchor_urb(cmdinfo->data_in_urb);
 			uas_log_cmd_state(cmnd, "data in submit err", err);
-			return SCSI_MLQUEUE_DEVICE_BUSY;
+			return err;
 		}

When alloc urb fail in the same function uas_submit_urbs,
whether we should replace SCSI_MLQUEUE_DEVICE_BUSY with generic
error code -ENOMEM? Such like this:

@@ -572,7 +571,7 @@ static int uas_submit_urbs(struct scsi_cmnd *cmnd,
 		cmdinfo->data_in_urb = uas_alloc_data_urb(devinfo, GFP_ATOMIC,
 							cmnd, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
 		if (!cmdinfo->data_in_urb)
-			return SCSI_MLQUEUE_DEVICE_BUSY;
+			return -ENOMEM;
 		cmdinfo->state &= ~ALLOC_DATA_IN_URB;
 	}

Thanks and Best regards,
Weitao