On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 04:47:07PM +0800, Ching Huang wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 10:59 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:45:03AM +0800, Ching Huang wrote:
> > > >From Ching Huang <ching2...@areca.com.tw>
> > >
> > > Fix suspend/resume of ACB_ADAPTER_TYPE_B part 2.
> > >
> >
> > What does this look like from a user perspective? Does it fail every
> > time or does it only fail sometimes?
> >
> > What's the bug exactly?
> >
> > There is no Fixes tag...
> >From user's perspective, hibernate/resume are OK.
> But following IO may cause 'isr get an illegal ccb command' in
> log/messages sometime.
> >
You will need to resend with that information included in the commit
message.
> > > Signed-off-by: Ching Huang <ching2...@areca.com.tw>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr.h b/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr.h
> > > index a94c513..b98c632 100755
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr.h
> > > @@ -508,9 +508,9 @@ struct MessageUnit_A
> > > struct MessageUnit_B
> > > {
> > > uint32_t post_qbuffer[ARCMSR_MAX_HBB_POSTQUEUE];
> > > - uint32_t done_qbuffer[ARCMSR_MAX_HBB_POSTQUEUE];
> > > + volatile uint32_t done_qbuffer[ARCMSR_MAX_HBB_POSTQUEUE];
> >
> > There is a well known rule of thumb that when someone uses "volatile"
> > in the kernel it means there is a locking problem... Is this __iomem or
> > something?
> The done_qbuffer was a command completion queue, it was an area written
> by IO processor and read by device driver. So, ...
I'm not totally positive I understand this sentence. I can find a bunch
of places which read from this buffer, but I haven't immediately found
which place writes to it. Can you give me a function name that I should
read?
> >
> > > uint32_t postq_index;
> > > - uint32_t doneq_index;
> > > + volatile uint32_t doneq_index;
The volatile here is not right. It's just normal memory.
regards,
dan carpenter
