On 2/4/21 10:09 PM, Can Guo wrote:
> That code is wrong. The Task Tag in Dword_0 should be the real tag we
> allocated for TMR. The transfer request Task Tag which we are trying to
> abort is given in Dword_5, which is the Input Parameter 3 of the TMR UPIU.
> I am not sure why the author gave hba->
On 2021-02-01 10:39, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 1/28/21 9:57 PM, Can Guo wrote:
On 2021-01-29 11:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 1/27/21 8:16 PM, Can Guo wrote:
In __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(), it is not right to use hba->nutrs +
req->tag as
the Task Tag in one TMR UPIU. Directly use req->tag as the T
On 1/28/21 9:57 PM, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2021-01-29 11:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 1/27/21 8:16 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>>> In __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(), it is not right to use hba->nutrs +
>>> req->tag as
>>> the Task Tag in one TMR UPIU. Directly use req->tag as the Task Tag.
>>
>> Why is the curren
On 2021-01-29 11:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 1/27/21 8:16 PM, Can Guo wrote:
In __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(), it is not right to use hba->nutrs +
req->tag as
the Task Tag in one TMR UPIU. Directly use req->tag as the Task Tag.
Why is the current code wrong and why is this patch the proper fix?
P
On 1/27/21 8:16 PM, Can Guo wrote:
> In __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(), it is not right to use hba->nutrs + req->tag as
> the Task Tag in one TMR UPIU. Directly use req->tag as the Task Tag.
Why is the current code wrong and why is this patch the proper fix?
Please explain this in the patch description.
In __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(), it is not right to use hba->nutrs + req->tag as
the Task Tag in one TMR UPIU. Directly use req->tag as the Task Tag.
Fixes: e293313262d3 ("scsi: ufs: Fix broken task management command
implementation")
Signed-off-by: Can Guo
---
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 36 ++
6 matches
Mail list logo
