On 8/23/2013 11:47 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 00:35 +0530, Santosh Y wrote:
From: Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthumma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As part of device initialization sequence, sending NOP OUT UPIU and
waiting for NOP IN UPIU response is mandatory. This confirms that the
device UFS Transport (UTP) layer is functional and the host can configure
the device with further commands. Add support for sending NOP OUT UPIU to
check the device connection path and test whether the UTP layer on the
device side is functional during initialization.
A tag is acquired from the SCSI tag map space in order to send the device
management command. When the tag is acquired by internal command the scsi
command is rejected with host busy flag in order to requeue the request.
To avoid frequent collisions between internal commands and scsi commands
the device management command tag is allocated in the opposite direction
w.r.t block layer tag allocation.
Signed-off-by: Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthumma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dolev Raviv <draviv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Santosh Y <santoshsy@xxxxxxxxx>
This signoff chain looks wrong to me. The patch has quite a long
history. Originally, it was sent in by Sujit, then later resent by
Dolev with his signoff, then Sujit did a V2 which incorrectly seemed to
include Dolev's signoff (that's not correct: signoffs should follow the
chain of transmission, so a new patch wouldn't have a previous
transmission signoff).
Initially we had two patches -
scsi: ufs: add support for query requests authored by Dolev and
scsi: ufs: Add support for sending NOP OUT UPIU authored by me.
Based on a possible design issue with the former patch, Dolev merged
the patch into the later (NOP OUT patch).
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.msm/4202/focus=1505731
Since some of the contents are picked from the original patch during
rework, I have asked Dolev include his Signed-off-by as a co-author.
Then we got a V3 which was tested by Maya Erez,
and finally a v4 which looks to have no testers. In your last
submission, you picked up this signoff, so I've changed it to a
reviewed-by which seems to be the most appropriate (although I'm not
entirely sure Dolev did review the v4 patch).
If this is wrong and Dolev did rewrite the patch (so is one of the
authors, which would explain the signoff chain) let me know and I'll
edit it in the tree (rebasing is acceptable to get the correct history).
James
--
Regards,
Sujit
--
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
