linux-kernel - RE: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Refactor ufshcd_is_intr_aggr

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: <37380050.31624517282371.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp4>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:41:08 +0900
From:   Keoseong Park <keosung.park@...sung.com>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Keoseong Park <keosung.park@...sung.com>,
        "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>,
        "satyat@...gle.com" <satyat@...gle.com>,
        "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Refactor ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed()

>On 21/06/21 11:51 am, Keoseong Park wrote:
>> Change conditional compilation to IS_ENABLED macro,
>> and simplify if else statement to return statement.
>> No functional change.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Keoseong Park <keosung.park@...sung.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h | 17 ++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>> index c98d540ac044..6d239a855753 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>> @@ -893,16 +893,15 @@ static inline bool ufshcd_is_rpm_autosuspend_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>  
>>  static inline bool ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>  {
>> -/* DWC UFS Core has the Interrupt aggregation feature but is not detectable*/
>> -#ifndef CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC
>> -	if ((hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_INTR_AGGR) &&
>> -	    !(hba->quirks & UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_INTR_AGGR))
>> +	/*
>> +	 * DWC UFS Core has the Interrupt aggregation feature
>> +	 * but is not detectable.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC))
>
>Why is this needed?  It seems like you could just set UFSHCD_CAP_INTR_AGGR
>and clear UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_INTR_AGGR instead?

Hello Adrian,
Sorry for late reply.

The code that returns true when CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC is set in the original code 
is only changed using the IS_ENABLED macro.
(Linux kernel coding style, 21) Conditional Compilation)

When CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC is not defined, the code for checking quirk 
and caps has been moved to the newly added return statement below.

Thanks,
Keoseong

>
>>  		return true;
>> -	else
>> -		return false;
>> -#else
>> -return true;
>> -#endif
>> +
>> +	return (hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_INTR_AGGR) &&
>> +		!(hba->quirks & UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_INTR_AGGR);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static inline bool ufshcd_can_aggressive_pc(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> 
>