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
