[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<BL0PR04MB6564C8347FFD2C60B5C589F4FC4C2@BL0PR04MB6564.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:03:05 +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 3/4] scsi: ufs: core: Use reg_lock to protect UTRLCLR
> On 10/21/24 5:03 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> > @@ -3100,9 +3100,9 @@ static int ufshcd_clear_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> u32 task_tag)
> > mask = 1U << task_tag;
> >
> > /* clear outstanding transaction before retry */
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->reg_lock, flags);
> > ufshcd_utrl_clear(hba, mask);
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->reg_lock, flags);
> >
> > /*
> > * wait for h/w to clear corresponding bit in door-bell.
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> A similar comment as for the previous patch applies to this patch:
> ufshcd_utrl_clear() performs a single MMIO write so I don't think that calls of
> this function have to be serialized.
Done.
Thanks,
Avri
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists