Currently, ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock() is only called by
ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock() with the addition of a spinlock wrapper
for ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(). Combining these two functions
into one would result in cleaner code.
Reviewed-by: Bao D. Nguyen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <[email protected]>
---
drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c | 17 ++++-------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
index 920eb954f594..785fc9762cad 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
@@ -307,11 +307,13 @@ void ufshcd_mcq_compl_all_cqes_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
}
-static unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
- struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
+unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
+ struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
{
unsigned long completed_reqs = 0;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_tail_slot(hwq);
while (!ufshcd_mcq_is_cq_empty(hwq)) {
ufshcd_mcq_process_cqe(hba, hwq);
@@ -321,17 +323,6 @@ static unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
if (completed_reqs)
ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_head(hwq);
-
- return completed_reqs;
-}
-
-unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
- struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
-{
- unsigned long completed_reqs, flags;
-
- spin_lock_irqsave(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
- completed_reqs = ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(hba, hwq);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
return completed_reqs;
--
2.18.0
>Currently, ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock() is only called by
>ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock() with the addition of a spinlock wrapper
>for ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(). Combining these two functions
>into one would result in cleaner code.
>
>Reviewed-by: Bao D. Nguyen <[email protected]>
>Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <[email protected]>
>---
> drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c | 17 ++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>index 920eb954f594..785fc9762cad 100644
>--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-mcq.c
>@@ -307,11 +307,13 @@ void ufshcd_mcq_compl_all_cqes_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
> }
>
>-static unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>- struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
>+unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>+ struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
> {
> unsigned long completed_reqs = 0;
>+ unsigned long flags;
>
>+ spin_lock_irqsave(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
> ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_tail_slot(hwq);
> while (!ufshcd_mcq_is_cq_empty(hwq)) {
> ufshcd_mcq_process_cqe(hba, hwq);
>@@ -321,17 +323,6 @@ static unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>
> if (completed_reqs)
> ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_head(hwq);
>-
>- return completed_reqs;
>-}
>-
>-unsigned long ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>- struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq)
>-{
>- unsigned long completed_reqs, flags;
>-
>- spin_lock_irqsave(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
>- completed_reqs = ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(hba, hwq);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hwq->cq_lock, flags);
>
> return completed_reqs;
>--
>2.18.0
>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Keoseong Park <[email protected]>
Best Regards,
Keoseong
On 02.06.23 12:50 AM, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Currently, ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock() is only called by
> ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock() with the addition of a spinlock wrapper
> for ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(). Combining these two functions
> into one would result in cleaner code.
>
> Reviewed-by: Bao D. Nguyen<[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu<[email protected]>
Acked-by: Bean Huo <[email protected]>
On 6/1/23 15:50, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Currently, ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock() is only called by
> ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock() with the addition of a spinlock wrapper
> for ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(). Combining these two functions
> into one would result in cleaner code.
For future patches, please use the imperative mood for the patch
description ("would result in" -> "results in"). Additionally, a
follow-up patch that renames ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock() into
ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe() would be welcome. Anyway:
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>
Stanley,
> Currently, ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock() is only called by
> ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock() with the addition of a spinlock wrapper
> for ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_nolock(). Combining these two functions
> into one would result in cleaner code.
Applied to 6.5/scsi-staging, thanks!
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering