From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Bean Huo <beanhuo@iokpp.de>,
alim.akhtar@samsung.com, avri.altman@wdc.com,
asutoshd@codeaurora.org, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, stanley.chu@mediatek.com,
beanhuo@micron.com, tomas.winkler@intel.com, cang@codeaurora.org,
daejun7.park@samsung.com
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] scsi: ufs: core: Cleanup ufshcd_slave_alloc()
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 14:05:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <925af9f5-b05b-1b61-c905-d19cdc54ce19@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221010092937.520013-3-beanhuo@iokpp.de>
On 10/10/22 02:29, Bean Huo wrote:
> From: Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
>
> Combine ufshcd_get_lu_power_on_wp_status() and ufshcd_set_queue_depth()
> into one single ufshcd_lu_init(), so that we only need to read the LUN
> descriptor once to replace the original twice.
The following part can probably be left out from the patch description
without reducing clarity: " to replace the original twice".
> +/**
> + * ufshcd_lu_power_on_wp_init - Initialize LU's power on write protect state
> + * @hba: per-adapter instance
> + * @sdev: pointer to SCSI device
> + * @b_lu_write_protect: bLUWriteProtect value read from LU descriptor
> + */
> +static inline void ufshcd_lu_power_on_wp_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, const struct scsi_device *sdev,
> + u8 b_lu_write_protect)
> +{
> + if (hba->dev_info.f_power_on_wp_en && !hba->dev_info.is_lu_power_on_wp &&
> + b_lu_write_protect == UFS_LU_POWER_ON_WP)
> + hba->dev_info.is_lu_power_on_wp = true;
> +}
The body of this function is only three lines long and this function is
only called once. Are you sure that you want a separate function instead
of inlining this function in its only caller?
> +static void ufshcd_lu_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct scsi_device *sdev)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + int len;
> + u8 lun;
> + u8 lun_qdepth;
> + u8 *desc_buf;
Most kernel developers these days order local variable declarations from
longest to shortest line ("reverse Christmas tree").
> + lun_qdepth = hba->nutrs;
> + lun = ufshcd_scsi_to_upiu_lun(sdev->lun);
> + len = hba->desc_size[QUERY_DESC_IDN_UNIT];
> +
> + desc_buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!desc_buf)
> + goto set_qdepth;
> +
> + ret = ufshcd_read_unit_desc_param(hba, lun, 0, desc_buf, len);
> + if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> + /* If LU doesn't support unit descriptor, its queue depth is set to 1 */
> + lun_qdepth = 1;
> + else if (desc_buf[UNIT_DESC_PARAM_LU_Q_DEPTH])
> + lun_qdepth = min_t(int, desc_buf[UNIT_DESC_PARAM_LU_Q_DEPTH], hba->nutrs);
ufshcd_read_unit_desc_param() can return fewer bytes than requested. How
about modifying ufshcd_read_unit_desc_param() such that it returns the
number of bytes that has been copied and using that return value above
to check whether at least UNIT_DESC_PARAM_LU_Q_DEPTH bytes have been
initialized in desc_buf?
> + /*
> + * According to UFS device spec, The write protection mode is only supported by normal LU,
> + * not supported by WLUN.
> + */
> + if (!ret && lun < hba->dev_info.max_lu_supported)
> + ufshcd_lu_power_on_wp_init(hba, sdev, desc_buf[UNIT_DESC_PARAM_LU_WR_PROTECT]);
Please insert an if (ret < 0) check after the
ufshcd_read_unit_desc_param() call and jump to the kfree() statement if
ret < 0 instead of checking several times whether or not ret < 0.
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-14 21:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-10 9:29 [PATCH v2 0/2] Changes for ufshcd.c Bean Huo
2022-10-10 9:29 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] scsi: ufs: core: Remove unnecessary if statement Bean Huo
2022-10-11 2:21 ` Daejun Park
2022-10-11 9:39 ` Bean Huo
2022-10-14 0:19 ` Daejun Park
2022-10-14 18:37 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-10-14 19:20 ` Bean Huo
2022-10-14 20:41 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-10-14 20:57 ` Bean Huo
2022-10-14 20:30 ` Bean Huo
2022-10-14 20:45 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-10-10 9:29 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] scsi: ufs: core: Cleanup ufshcd_slave_alloc() Bean Huo
2022-10-14 21:05 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2022-10-17 16:56 ` Bean Huo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=925af9f5-b05b-1b61-c905-d19cdc54ce19@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=asutoshd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=beanhuo@iokpp.de \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=cang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=daejun7.park@samsung.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=stanley.chu@mediatek.com \
--cc=tomas.winkler@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox