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]

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 10:05:30 +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



On 2/22/2024 1:55 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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.

Hi Bart,

The if-statement you are mentioning here, is it the if (hba->vops && 
hba->vops->setup_xfer_req) or if (is_mcq_enabled(hba))?

Thanks,

Can Guo.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
>