linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 2/4] scsi: ufs: Re-use exec_dev

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, 7 Mar 2024 19:28:58 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>, "James E . J . Bottomley"
	<jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/4] scsi: ufs: Re-use exec_dev_cmd

> 
> On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 23:00 +0200, Avri Altman wrote:
> > Move out the actual command issue from exec_dev_cmd so it can be used
> > elsewhere.  While at it, remove a redundant "lrbp->cmd = NULL"
> > assignment.  Also, as a free bonus, call the upiu trace if it doesn't.
> 
> 
> This statement is a bit strange, what it is "if it doesn't"?
> 
> from the change, the patch refactors command issue for broader usage
> and enhance UPIU tracing, isolate the command issuance logic from
> `ufshcd_exec_dev_cmd` to allow reuse across different contexts.
What I meant is, that I see no downside for including the bsg path in the upiu trace event.
Do you object to that?

Thanks,
Avri