From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=199.89.1.14 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792600650; b=JDP6C40FkENIBrav2CR+M1WnKIg8/9OnX6iTTmw7xGt80mBnKV2E+I4skStm9U7uE5G4 XtJu+yebHaiSQndKqCXsTws/dESnboI7yJqCWsR62JxlHh4kvbBnI4B9W9iiN0VlRD/6D 67Tuu9+u35vVTrSSzlFxvtQnZKplcSoXHmrk//NfIbDuHBKmYUI5oGucrs3GFAJtDd14b HeNq4VRoKbI7WxlONeoGxW4DvmcAyobTcJ7rJvqwYWa4+Eyzh+ympTwRkPJfjC4ovAVId k51jct3q6Dvv+Vj4puQMBF7EsWBqFlMRnPaF8zNEXywml7L0GTeuRLJFKfklyFvuOPA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792600650; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Virus-Scanned:Received: Received:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:User-Agent:Subject:To:Cc: References:Content-Language:From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=YLCxMKcoPqJQvB6O+KV4fn7PG1sEtJ+RVWenhox/UVk=; b=xvOmuG4akAfMaLryuXeRnxE/8BXvrfSQZBZx8lhF83kyPqOeqmsH9DGA7EF2PeoNTvnR VeNbGK0Er9qRSAZMfQCSB59yauKsPFjrJ7HqGbts2ZGmMwKGzO0KpzbeDwnk5oy1ibJ87 5BY9XMtoalv3T5uRDFYYJr/JwiAb51E4nY7roQu6SAVY8ofTtuv7/6nIDP54fRMngYp6z gwRkY6ynqPn3ozYmt1zpIovoj7LpcHwnvVgIICIY4dCnx/EpraSeeK1XaMibzc6zJX6WB IXiWQHoWHgKpdRpu8EHSrgCFSwbWY+K7ZeUR1US5kWnADpq1P7iAEfFvkAwyqXwxu5A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mr01 header.b=W0F44w4k; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=199.89.1.14 Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net (011.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.14]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B962A606A31E; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:37:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org B962A606A31E Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mr01 header.b=W0F44w4k Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4j8w1P0dpKz1XM4Tn; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:37:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1792600645; x=1795192646; bh=YLCxMKcoPqJQvB6O+KV4fn7P G1sEtJ+RVWenhox/UVk=; b=W0F44w4kMysnjqfe10crB0r4/w1Yzt8bKB3ayzBW IOWFsntacPGYef7vUzP7UAtjURQClKa735i4DvUpGE4IsQEgYi2wR60Pup/Wdnxi ImBMz2TKQ8+IfZ5dNMHR1QXBfHH8bWBsGZnxcZGbDBGtykpCrzL0PgTjpIT8B4fj s5Qtom2aERpqDd/2auNwgyMAubA3EOruaafByt3X+qrBXwpQych9IpmdmBdIgINX 1wo1NbUxVwahvgkFk1dzbgiokPn5aGc4rDoGGe4tCKNMJqP9hshisF5FFWtgGlxi lT5izhQ1z7EWm6fZKTclyrGi9+SToe2oxnhDxEGRrD82bg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (011.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id 56L81EbwRjUK; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:37:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.80.231.125] (unknown [104.135.182.41]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4j8w1J3QJwz1XM4Tl; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2026 09:37:23 -0700 X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] scsi: ufs: core: Fix double release in ufshcd_abort() To: Stanley Jhu , Peter Wang Cc: "Martin K . Petersen" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "James E . J . Bottomley" , Alim Akhtar , Bean Huo , Can Guo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20261021035450.3488805-1-stanleyjhu@google.com> <20261021040615.3566831-1-stanleyjhu@google.com> <20261021040615.3566831-3-stanleyjhu@google.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/21/26 6:28 AM, Stanley Jhu wrote: > A return value of 0 here means the completion path, rather than > this abort path, has claimed the tag and may still be running > ufshcd_release_scsi_cmd() after it dropped outstanding_lock. Do we really need the code that checks that a command has completed without notification interrupt? I have never encountered any logs on any test setup that indicates that this happened. Thanks, Bart.