linux-kernel - 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: <42c2978f-f0ca-3efb-7762-cac813a0a5fe@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:25:03 +0300
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     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>,
        Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>,
        Pedro Sousa <sousa@...opsys.com>,
        Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Refactor ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed()

On 24/06/21 9:41 am, Keoseong Park wrote:
>> 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.

Looking closer I cannot find CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC at all.  It seems like it
never existed.

Why should we not remove the code related to CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC entirely?


> 
> 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)
>>>
>>