linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 3/3] scsi: ufs: ufs-exynos: implement exynos isr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB6575978CE43BB03BB0B29AB1FCDD9@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:59:14 +0000
From:   Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To:     Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        "adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        "sc.suh@...sung.com" <sc.suh@...sung.com>,
        "hy50.seo@...sung.com" <hy50.seo@...sung.com>,
        "sh425.lee@...sung.com" <sh425.lee@...sung.com>,
        "bhoon95.kim@...sung.com" <bhoon95.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 3/3] scsi: ufs: ufs-exynos: implement exynos isr

Hi,

> +static irqreturn_t exynos_ufs_isr(struct ufs_hba *hba) {
> +       struct exynos_ufs *ufs = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
> +       u32 status;
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +
> +       if (!hba->priv) return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +       status = hci_readl(ufs, VENDOR_SPECIFIC_IS);
> +       hci_writel(ufs, status, VENDOR_SPECIFIC_IS);
> +       /*
> +        * If host doesn't guarantee integrity of UTP transmission,
> +        * it needs to be reset immediately to make it unable to
> +        * proceed requests. Because w/o this, if UTP functions
> +        * in host doesn't work properly for such system power margins,
> +        * DATA IN from broken devices or whatever in the real world,
> +        * some unexpected events could happen, such as transferring
> +        * a broken DATA IN to a device. It could be various types of
> +        * problems on the level of file system. In this case, I think
> +        * blocking the host's functionality is the best strategy.
> +        * Perhaps, if its root cause is temporary, system could recover.
> +        */
> +       if (status & RX_UPIU_HIT_ERROR) {
> +               pr_err("%s: status: 0x%08x\n", __func__, status);
> +               hba->force_reset = true;
> +               hba->force_requeue = true;
If force_reset is true, isn't force_requeue redundant?

Thanks,
Avri

> +               scsi_schedule_eh(hba->host);
> +               spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> +               return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +       }
> +       return IRQ_NONE;
> +}
> +
>  static struct ufs_hba_variant_ops ufs_hba_exynos_ops = {
>         .name                           = "exynos_ufs",
>         .init                           = exynos_ufs_init,
> @@ -1209,6 +1268,7 @@ static struct ufs_hba_variant_ops
> ufs_hba_exynos_ops = {
>         .hibern8_notify                 = exynos_ufs_hibern8_notify,
>         .suspend                        = exynos_ufs_suspend,
>         .resume                         = exynos_ufs_resume,
> +       .intr                           = exynos_ufs_isr,
>  };
> 
>  static int exynos_ufs_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> --
> 2.7.4