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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGt9f=T5352bo=K2OAa7QRMds=tQC1JspN+zQ2aYxNRDWGSVnA@mail.gmail.com>
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.