linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mmc: cavium: Remove redundant if-statement checkup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <79ec60974875d4ac17589ea4575e36ec1204f881.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:42:37 +0100
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     rric@...nel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Bean Huo (beanhuo)" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "# 4.0+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mmc: cavium: Remove redundant if-statement
 checkup

On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 15:09 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 13:14, Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
> > Currently, we have two ways to issue multiple-block read/write the
> > command to the eMMC. One is by normal IO request path fs->block-
> > >mmc.
> > Another one is that we can issue multiple-block read/write through
> > MMC ioctl interface. For the first path, mrq->stop, and mrq->stop-
> > >opcode
> > will be initialized in mmc_blk_data_prep(). However, for the second
> > IO
> > path, mrq->stop is not initialized since it is a pre-defined
> > multiple
> > blocks read/write.
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact this way is also supported for the regular block
> 
> I/O path. To make the mmc block driver to use it, mmc host drivers
> 
> need to announce that it's supported by setting MMC_CAP_CMD23.
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like that is what your patch should be targeted towards, can
> 
> you have a look at this instead?
> 
> 

Hi Ulf,
Thanks for your comments. I will look at that as your suggestion.
The patch [1/2] is accepted, so I will just update this patch to
the next version.

Kind regards,
Bean

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Uffe