linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Do not open code read_poll

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:
 <DM6PR04MB657543C148391E6F60921083FC6C2@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 19:00:37 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, "Martin K . Petersen"
	<martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Do not open code read_poll_timeout

> Has it been considered to remove the ufshcd_wait_for_register() function and
> to use read_poll_timeout() directly in the
> ufshcd_wait_for_register() callers? The above patch makes
> ufshcd_wait_for_register() so short that it's probably better to remove this
> function entirely.
Yes - I thought about it.
I think that the wait_for_register makes it much clearer what the function actually does,
And for that reason, only, it worth keeping the function name.
However, if it’s a must I can remove it as you suggested.

Thanks,
Avri

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.