> > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > index 7bc3fc4..da1a9c0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -2199,9 +2199,10 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> unsigned int task_tag,
> > if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
> > int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
> > struct utp_transfer_req_desc *src = lrbp->utr_descriptor_ptr;
> > - struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr +
> hwq->sq_tail_slot;
> > + struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest;
> >
> > spin_lock(&hwq->sq_lock);
> > + dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
> > memcpy(dest, src, utrd_size);
> > ufshcd_inc_sq_tail(hwq);
> > spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock);
>
> Is this perhaps a duplicate of patch "scsi: ufs: core: Let the sq_lock
> protect sq_tail_slot access"? See also https://lore.kernel.org/linux-
> scsi/1702913550-20631-1-git-send-email-quic_cang@xxxxxxxxxxx/#t
I didn’t see it. Thank you for letting me know.
