On Tue, 2021-07-13 at 12:06 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
> > @@ -1229,8 +1229,13 @@ static inline int
> > ufshcd_vops_pwr_change_notify(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> > static inline void ufshcd_vops_setup_xfer_req(struct ufs_hba
> > *hba, int tag,
> > bool is_scsi_cmd)
> > {
> > - if (hba->vops && hba->vops->setup_xfer_req)
> > - return hba->vops->setup_xfer_req(hba, tag,
> > is_scsi_cmd);
> > + if (hba->vops && hba->vops->setup_xfer_req) {
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > + hba->vops->setup_xfer_req(hba, tag, is_scsi_cmd);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > static inline void ufshcd_vops_setup_task_mgmt(struct ufs_hba
> > *hba,
>
>
> Can anyone help with reviewing this patch?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
Hi Bart,
This change only impacts on the Samsung exynos platform. and Can's
optimization patch is to optimise the host_lock,, and removed
host_lock, now add back in this function makes sense to me.
but I am thinking how about hba->host_sem?
Bean
Bean
> Bart.
