On 19/01/2019 10:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Jan 18, 2019 at 10:48:15AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> It's UFS that totally buggy, if you look at its queuecommand, it does: >> >> if (!down_read_trylock(&hba->clk_scaling_lock)) >> >> return SCSI_MLQUEUE_HOST_BUSY; >> >> UFS either needs to get fixed up, or we'll want a way to do something like >> the below. > > I think the right answer is to just revert the offending patch instead > of papering over it in the SCSI code.
[ Adjusting recipients list ] Full thread, for new recipients: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg138601.html Christoph, do you mean a3cd5ec55f6c7 ? Regards.
