linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: Fix setup_xfer

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: <c7635c10-1724-4db5-9568-d554e1c64f72@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 17:13:24 +0800
From: Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, 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

Hi Bart,

On 2/21/2024 1:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2/20/24 01:08, Rohit Ner wrote:
>> Allow variant callback to setup transfers without
>> restricting the transfers to use legacy doorbell
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Ner <rohitner@...gle.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 6 +++---
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
>> index d77b25b79ae3..91e483dd3974 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
>> @@ -2280,6 +2280,9 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba, 
>> unsigned int task_tag,
>>           ufshcd_clk_scaling_start_busy(hba);
>>       if (unlikely(ufshcd_should_inform_monitor(hba, lrbp)))
>>           ufshcd_start_monitor(hba, lrbp);
>> +    if (hba->vops && hba->vops->setup_xfer_req)
>> +        hba->vops->setup_xfer_req(hba, lrbp->task_tag,
>> +                        !!lrbp->cmd);
>>       if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
>>           int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
>> @@ -2293,9 +2296,6 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba, 
>> unsigned int task_tag,
>>           spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock);
>>       } else {
>>           spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->outstanding_lock, flags);
>> -        if (hba->vops && hba->vops->setup_xfer_req)
>> -            hba->vops->setup_xfer_req(hba, lrbp->task_tag,
>> -                          !!lrbp->cmd);
>>           __set_bit(lrbp->task_tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs);
>>           ufshcd_writel(hba, 1 << lrbp->task_tag,
>>                     REG_UTP_TRANSFER_REQ_DOOR_BELL);
> 
> UFS controllers that are compliant with the JEDEC UFSHCI specification do
> not need the .setup_xfer_req() callback so I think a better motivation is
> needed to make this change.

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.

Thanks,
Can Guo.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.