linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: core: Add a trace function calling when uic command error occurs

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: <17781804-d36f-41c2-a858-1edf905ca8ac@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 14:35:33 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: DooHyun Hwang <dh0421.hwang@...sung.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com,
 James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
 peter.wang@...iatek.com, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
 quic_mnaresh@...cinc.com
Cc: grant.jung@...sung.com, jt77.jang@...sung.com, junwoo80.lee@...sung.com,
 jangsub.yi@...sung.com, sh043.lee@...sung.com, cw9316.lee@...sung.com,
 sh8267.baek@...sung.com, wkon.kim@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: core: Add a trace function calling when
 uic command error occurs

On 4/16/25 7:34 PM, DooHyun Hwang wrote:
> When a uic command error occurs, there is no trace function calling.
> Therefore, trace function calls are added when a uic command error happens.
> 
> Signed-off-by: DooHyun Hwang <dh0421.hwang@...sung.com>
> ---
>   drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index ab98acd982b5..baac1ae94efc 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -2534,6 +2534,9 @@ ufshcd_wait_for_uic_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct uic_command *uic_cmd)
>   	hba->active_uic_cmd = NULL;
>   	spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>   
> +	if (ret)
> +		ufshcd_add_uic_command_trace(hba, uic_cmd, UFS_CMD_ERR);
> +
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> @@ -4306,6 +4309,8 @@ static int ufshcd_uic_pwr_ctrl(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct uic_command *cmd)
>   	}
>   out:
>   	if (ret) {
> +		ufshcd_add_uic_command_trace(hba, hba->active_uic_cmd,
> +					     UFS_CMD_ERR);
>   		ufshcd_print_host_state(hba);
>   		ufshcd_print_pwr_info(hba);
>   		ufshcd_print_evt_hist(hba);

Shouldn't the value of 'ret' be included in the UFS_CMD_ERR trace output?

Thanks,

Bart.