Re: [PATCH v1] ufs: core: fix hwq_id type and value

["Peter Wang (王信友)" <peter.wang@mediatek.com>]

On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 09:15 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 
> Is this change really necessary? I like the current behavior because
> it
> makes it easy to figure out whether or not MCQ has been enabled. Even
> if
> others would agree with this change, I think that the "Fixes:" and
> "Cc:
> stable" tags are overkill because I don't see this as a bug fix but
> rather as a behavior change that is not a bug fix.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.


Hi Bart,

Whether it is necessary or not depends on how we define 'necessary.' 
If the criterion is simply to avoid errors, then indeed, this patch 
is not necessary. However, if we are addressing the warning caused 
by incorrect behavior (assigning int to u32), then it is necessary 
to fix it. After all, we shouldn't just be satisfied with avoiding 
errors, we should strive to make the Linux kernel as perfect as 
possible, shouldn't we?

Additionally, there are many ways to determine whether MCQ is enabled,
including reading the host capability or checking hba->mcq_enabled,
etc. 
Moreover, MCQ is not a feature that trun on and off at runtime.
It is at the end of the UFS initialization that the status of MCQ 
is determined, so it shouldn't be necessary to rely on this to 
determine whether MCQ is enabled, right?

Thanks
Peter