linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/2] ufs: poll HCS.UCRDY before issuing a UIC command

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]

Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:16:53 +0300
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, beanhuo@...ron.com, sc.suh@...sung.com,
        hy50.seo@...sung.com, sh425.lee@...sung.com,
        kwangwon.min@...sung.com, junwoo80.lee@...sung.com,
        wkon.kim@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/2] ufs: poll HCS.UCRDY before issuing a UIC
 command

On 17/08/23 18:02, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/14/23 04:26, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> And perhaps the following is neater:
>>
>>     u32 val;
>>
>>     return !read_poll_timeout(ufshcd_readl, val, val & UIC_COMMAND_READY,
>>                   500, UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT * 1000, false, hba,
>>                   REG_CONTROLLER_STATUS);
> 
> Would the above make readers of that code wonder whether read_poll_timeout()
> perhaps returns a boolean? Wouldn't it be better to test the
> read_poll_timeout() return value as follows?
> 
>      return read_poll_timeout(ufshcd_readl, val, val & UIC_COMMAND_READY,
>                    500, UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT * 1000, false, hba,
>                    REG_CONTROLLER_STATUS) == 0;
> 

Either is fine, otherwise:

Reviewed-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>