On 4/15/19 5:23 AM, Stanley Chu wrote: > If UFS device responds an unknown request response code, > we can not know what it was via logs because the code > is replaced by "DID_ERROR << 16" before log printing. > > Fix this to provide precise request response code information > for easier issue breakdown. > > Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > index e040f9dd9ff3..fbe1e88eec55 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > @@ -4704,10 +4704,10 @@ ufshcd_transfer_rsp_status(struct ufs_hba *hba, > struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp) > "Reject UPIU not fully implemented\n"); > break; > default: > - result = DID_ERROR << 16; > dev_err(hba->dev, > "Unexpected request response code = %x\n", > result); > + result = DID_ERROR << 16; > break; > } > break; >
Should "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" tags be added to this patch? Thanks, Bart.
