Please cc James and linux-scsi on drivers/scsi patches?
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:08:53 +0530
Venkatraman S <svenkatr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Else FAILED would be set even if task_result was
> originally equal to UPIU_TASK_MANAGEMENT_FUNC_SUCCEEDED.
This changelog is inadequate. It failed to describe the end-user
impact of the bug. Without this information we cannot decide which
kernel version(s) should be patched. Please always fully describe a
bug when fixing it.
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1160,7 +1160,7 @@ static int ufshcd_task_req_compl(struct ufs_hba *hba, u32 index)
> task_result = be32_to_cpu(task_rsp_upiup->header.dword_1);
> task_result = ((task_result & MASK_TASK_RESPONSE) >> 8);
>
> - if (task_result != UPIU_TASK_MANAGEMENT_FUNC_COMPL ||
> + if (task_result != UPIU_TASK_MANAGEMENT_FUNC_COMPL &&
> task_result != UPIU_TASK_MANAGEMENT_FUNC_SUCCEEDED)
> task_result = FAILED;
> } else {
And the title of the patch is poor. There is no "task_failed" here.
Something like "fix evaluation of task completion code" would be
better?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
