linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] ufs: core: Combine ufshcd_mq_poll

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: <20230607052712epcms2p3b765b9be7e67190a3286e5fb2992349e@epcms2p3>
Date:   Wed, 07 Jun 2023 14:27:12 +0900
From:   Keoseong Park <keosung.park@...sung.com>
To:     Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ufs: core: Combine ufshcd_mq_poll_cqe functions

>Currently, ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock() is only called by
>ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock() with the addition of a spinlock wrapper
>for ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(). Combining these two functions
>into one would result in cleaner code.
>
>Reviewed-by: Bao D. Nguyen <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>
>Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
>---
> drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c | 17 ++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>index 920eb954f594..785fc9762cad 100644
>--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>@@ -307,11 +307,13 @@ void ufshcd_mcq_compl_all_cqes_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
> }
> 
>-static unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>-						struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
>+unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>+				       struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
> {
> 	unsigned long completed_reqs = 0;
>+	unsigned long flags;
> 
>+	spin_lock_irqsave(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
> 	ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_tail_slot(hwq);
> 	while (!ufshcd_mcq_is_cq_empty(hwq)) {
> 		ufshcd_mcq_process_cqe(hba, hwq);
>@@ -321,17 +323,6 @@ static unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> 
> 	if (completed_reqs)
> 		ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_head(hwq);
>-
>-	return completed_reqs;
>-}
>-
>-unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>-				       struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
>-{
>-	unsigned long completed_reqs, flags;
>-
>-	spin_lock_irqsave(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
>-	completed_reqs = ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(hba, hwq);
> 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
> 
> 	return completed_reqs;
>-- 
>2.18.0
>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Keoseong Park <keosung.park@...sung.com>

Best Regards,
Keoseong