On 2/16/21 6:58 AM, Brian King wrote:
> On 2/11/21 12:57 PM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
>> index ba6fcf9cbc57..23b803ac4a13 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
>> @@ -5670,7 +5670,7 @@ static int ibmvfc_register_scsi_channel(struct
>> ibmvfc_host *vhost,
>>
>> irq_failed:
>> do {
>> - plpar_hcall_norets(H_FREE_SUB_CRQ, vdev->unit_address,
>> scrq->cookie);
>> + rc = plpar_hcall_norets(H_FREE_SUB_CRQ, vdev->unit_address,
>> scrq->cookie);
>> } while (rc == H_BUSY || H_IS_LONG_BUSY(rc));
>
> Other places in the driver where we get a busy return code back we have an
> msleep(100).
> Should we be doing that here as well?
Indeed, and actually even better would be to use rtas_busy_delay() which will
perform the sleep with the correct ms delay, and marks itself with the
might_sleep() macro.
-Tyrel
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
