On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 08:47:13PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > 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 ?
Yes.
