[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB6575AB717CEA9D2C126A64CAFCCE9@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 06:24:31 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] scsi: ufs: Probe for temperature notification support
>
> On 9/1/21 5:37 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> > +static inline bool ufshcd_is_high_temp_notif_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > +{
> > + return hba->dev_info.high_temp_notif;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool ufshcd_is_low_temp_notif_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > +{
> > + return hba->dev_info.low_temp_notif;
> > +}
>
> Please do not introduce single line inline functions.
Done.
>
> > +static inline bool ufshcd_is_temp_notif_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > +{
> > + return ufshcd_is_high_temp_notif_allowed(hba) ||
> > + ufshcd_is_high_temp_notif_allowed(hba);
> > +}
>
> Since this function is not in any hot path (command processing),
> shouldn't it be moved into ufshcd.c?
Done.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists