On 5/23/24 22:43, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>On 5/22/24 17:22, Chanwoo Lee wrote:
>> An error unrelated to ufshcd_try_to_abort_task is being output and
>> can cause confusion. So, I modified it to output the result of abort
>> fail. This modification was similarly revised by referring to the
>> ufshcd_abort function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Lee <cw9316.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>> index 005d63ab1f44..fc24d1af1fe8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>> @@ -667,9 +667,11 @@ int ufshcd_mcq_abort(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>> * in the completion queue either. Query the device to see if
>> * the command is being processed in the device.
>> */
>> - if (ufshcd_try_to_abort_task(hba, tag)) {
>> + err = ufshcd_try_to_abort_task(hba, tag);
>> + if (err) {
>> dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: device abort failed %d\n", __func__, err);
>> lrbp->req_abort_skip = true;
>> + err = FAILED;
>> goto out;
>> }
>
>Why does the word "Fixing" occur in the title of this patch? I think
>that this patch does not affect the value returned by
>ufshcd_mcq_abort(). From the start of that function:
>
>int err = FAILED;
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bart.
I thought this patch would be appropriate to "fix" the following log.
* dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: device abort failed %d\n", __func__, err);
If "Fixing" is not appropriate, could you suggest another word?
Thanks,
Chanwoo Lee.
