>> + if (!buffer) {
>> + dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: User buffer is NULL!\n",
>> __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>
> Should we remove this check or move it into ufshcd_query_ioctl()?
> For example, BLKFLS ioctl without argument is correct usage, but
> it always triggers this message. (blkdev_ioctl -> __blkdev_driver_ioctl
> -> sd_ioctl -> scsi_ioctl -> ufshcd_ioctl)
You're right, I'll move the check to ufshcd_query_ioctl().
> +++ b/include/uapi/scsi/ufs/ioctl.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
>> +#ifndef UAPI_UFS_IOCTL_H_
>> +#define UAPI_UFS_IOCTL_H_
>> +
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * IOCTL opcode for ufs queries has the following opcode after
>> + * SCSI_IOCTL_GET_PCI
>> + */
>> +#define UFS_IOCTL_QUERY 0x5388
>
> Should we also need some comments near SCSI_IOCTL_GET_PCI in
> include/scsi/scsi.h in order to avoid someone trying to define
> the same ioctl code in the future?
>
Indeed - I will add a comment.
Gilad.
--
Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
