Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] scsi: ufs: Fix wrong Task Tag used in task management request UPIUs
From: Can Guo <hidden>
Date: 2021-02-05 06:11:06
Also in:
lkml
On 2021-02-01 10:39, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 1/28/21 9:57 PM, Can Guo wrote:quoted
On 2021-01-29 11:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:quoted
On 1/27/21 8:16 PM, Can Guo wrote:quoted
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.req->tag is the tag allocated for one TMR, no?Hi Can, Commit e293313262d3 ("scsi: ufs: Fix broken task management command implementation") includes the following changes: + task_tag = hba->nutrs + free_slot; task_req_upiup->header.dword_0 = UPIU_HEADER_DWORD(UPIU_TRANSACTION_TASK_REQ, 0, - lrbp->lun, lrbp->task_tag); + lun_id, task_tag); task_req_upiup->header.dword_1 = UPIU_HEADER_DWORD(0, tm_function, 0, 0); As one can see the value written in dword_0 starts at hba->nutrs. Was that code correct? If that code was correct, does your patch perhaps break task management support?
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->nutrs + req->tag as the Task Tag of one TMR, the commit msg abot this part is not quite informative.... Table 10.22 — Task Management Request UPIU TASK MANAGEMENT REQUEST UPIU ---------------------------------- |0 |1 |2 |3 | ---------------------------------- |xx00 0100b| Flags |LUN |Task Tag| ---------------------------------- ... 16 (MSB) |17 |18 |19 (LSB)| ---------------------------------- Input Parameter 2 ---------------------------------- Table 10.24 — Task Management Input Parameters Field Description Input Parameter 2 LSB: Task Tag of the task/command operated by the task management function. Thanks, Can Guo.
Thanks, Bart.