[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f959cca-ad29-4b8b-966d-55eb37156ef8@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:55:06 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>, Rohit Ner <rohitner@...gle.com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>, Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc: Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: Fix setup_xfer_req invocation
On 2/21/24 01:13, Can Guo wrote:
> I am going to push some BUG fixes for Qualcomm UFSHCI MCQ engine, one of
> which would count on a vops in ufshcd_send_command(). My original plan
> was to add a new vops.mcq_setup_xfer_req() to differentiate from the
> existing one used in legacy mode. But if Rohit moves the existing
> .setup_xfer_req() up, I can use it instead of introducing the new one.
Hi Can,
If an if-statement can be avoided in the hot path by introducing a new
callback pointer for MCQ code then I prefer the approach of introducing
a new callback instead of moving the setup_xfer_req() call.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists