Bart, Thanks for your review, appreciated it. On Sun, 2021-05-23 at 18:32 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 5/23/21 2:14 PM, Bean Huo wrote: > > + opcode = cmd->cmnd[0]; > > + if ((opcode == READ_10) || (opcode == WRITE_10)) { > > + /* > > + * Currently we only fully trace read(10) and write(10) > > + * commands > > + */ > > + if (cmd->request && cmd->request->bio) > > + lba = cmd->request->bio->bi_iter.bi_sector; > > Why does the lba assignment occur inside the if-statement for the > READ_10 and WRITE_10 cases? Has it been considered to move that > assignment before this if-statement? yes, this lba assignment can be moved before if-statement: if (cmd->request && cmd->request->bio) lba = cmd->request->bio->bi_iter.bi_sector; if ((opcode == READ_10) || (opcode == WRITE_10)) { /* * Currently we only fully trace read(10) and write(10) * commands */ > > Does 'lba' represent an offset in units of 512 bytes (sector_t) or an > LBA (logical block address)? In the former case, please rename the > variable 'lba' into 'sector' or 'start_sector'. In the latter case, > please use sectors_to_logical(). apparently it is in 512 bytes. ok, sector is more readable. > > Why are READ_16 and WRITE_16 ignored? READ_16 and WRITE_16 are optimal for the UFS. not mandatory. > > Please remove the 'if (cmd->request)' checks since these are not > necessary. > > > + } else if (opcode == UNMAP) { > > + if (cmd->request) { > > + lba = scsi_get_lba(cmd); > > + transfer_len = blk_rq_bytes(cmd->request); > > } > > } > > The name of the variable 'transfer_len' is wrong since blk_rq_bytes() > returns the number of bytes affected on the storage medium instead of > the number of bytes transferred from the host to the storage > controller. > ok, I will remove them, and they will be a additional cleanup patch. > > /** > > - * Describes the ufs rpmb wlun. > > - * Used only to send uac. > > + * Describes the ufs rpmb wlun. Used only to send uac. > > */ > > Is this change related to the rest of this patch? > It might be a cleanup. Bean > Thanks, > > Bart.