On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 11:25 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 12:13:30 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > cfi_ppb_unlock() walks all flash chips when unlocking sectors,
> > avoid walking chips unaffected by the unlock operation.
> >
> > Fixes: 1648eaaa1575 ("mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Support Persistent Protection Bits (PPB) locking")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> That's clearly not a fix, just an optimization. You should drop the
> Fixes and Cc-stable tags.
It sure IS! The code never intended to do this and it is just bad luck that nothing bad
happened and I sure don't want to walk all 4 chips we have, stealing CPU and keeping the
flash busy just because I am using stable.
Given I have moved on now and we disagree, I will not reword and resubmit any
time soon. Feel free to do needed edits though.
Jocke
>
> > Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2 - Spilt into several patches
> >
> > drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > index b6273ce83de7..62cd4ee280b3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > @@ -2686,6 +2686,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused cfi_ppb_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs,
> > i++;
> >
> > if (adr >> cfi->chipshift) {
> > + if (offset >= (ofs + len))
> > + break;
> > adr = 0;
> > chipnum++;
> >
>
>
