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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:57:33 +0530
From: Rohit Ner <rohitner@...gle.com>
To: Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>, 
	Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>, 
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, 
	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,

Can we stick to the current approach of moving the .setup_xfer_req()
up, keeping in mind the following pros?
1. Avoid redundant callbacks for setting up transfers
2. Trim the duration for which hba->outstanding_lock is acquired unnecessarily

Thanks,
Rohit.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ