On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
Ok. I will send an updated version of the patch.
Regards,
Venkat.
--
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
