From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B22C43461 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EC4206DB for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=mg.codeaurora.org header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.b="lHQXXtj5" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726269AbgIPGeN (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 02:34:13 -0400 Received: from m43-7.mailgun.net ([69.72.43.7]:49089 "EHLO m43-7.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726136AbgIPGeK (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 02:34:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1600238049; h=Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Cc: To: From: Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: MIME-Version: Sender; bh=prCtKq1R1zy4yEQC9e7arLt8v2FySSHVYD5hW893oqo=; b=lHQXXtj5v5wasjL8vSrXaXKaptfuQxOa/I38/4WHX93qKA3O0cUSAeQQLtaV+GPn+oMaVxBb tobpOLNfO1Xh1aX5PM/qgmFKfkBmruOAhNRjU1g1/zaraJ6aqEk9/h2x1fi69MYwKYnMZtqL DLPIOpjohMYRagb96WgqL7HP6QY= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.43.7 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJlNmU5NiIsICJsaW51eC1zY3NpQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZyIsICJiZTllNGEiXQ== Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n07.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 5f61b1e1698ee477d1c4c9e4 (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:34:09 GMT Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 75A3DC433A0; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cang) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3651C433F1; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:34:08 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:34:08 +0800 From: Can Guo To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Bean Huo , James Bottomley , Stanley Chu , asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org, hongwus@codeaurora.org, ziqichen@codeaurora.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com, saravanak@google.com, salyzyn@google.com, Alim Akhtar , Avri Altman , Matthias Brugger , Bean Huo , Bart Van Assche , open list , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] scsi: ufs: Abort tasks before clear them from doorbell In-Reply-To: References: <1599099873-32579-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org> <1599099873-32579-2-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org> <1599627906.10803.65.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1599706080.10649.30.camel@mtkswgap22> <1599718697.3851.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1599725880.10649.35.camel@mtkswgap22> <1599754148.3575.4.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <010101747af387e9-f68ac6fa-1bc6-461d-92ec-dc0ee4486728-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> <4017d039fa323a63f89f01b5bf4cf714@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <149974f6d7073dae363797874fc088bf@codeaurora.org> X-Sender: cang@codeaurora.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 2020-09-16 04:21, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > Can, > >> Do you know when can this change be picked up in scsi-queue-5.10? >> If I push my fixes to ufshcd_abort() on scsi-queue-5.10, they will >> run into conflicts with this one again, right? How should I move >> forward now? > > You should be able to use 5.10/scsi-queue as baseline now. > > For 5.11 I think I'll do a separate branch for UFS. Thanks for the information. Regards, Can Guo.