Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ufs: core: Combine ufshcd_mq_poll_cqe functions
Reply-To: keosung.park@samsung.com
Sender: Keoseong Park <keosung.park@samsung.com>
From:   Keoseong Park <keosung.park@samsung.com>
To:     Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "avri.altman@wdc.com" <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "bvanassche@acm.org" <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230601225048.12228-1-stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
Message-ID: <20230607052712epcms2p3b765b9be7e67190a3286e5fb2992349e@epcms2p3>
Date:   Wed, 07 Jun 2023 14:27:12 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 102P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <20230601225048.12228-1-stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
        <CGME20230601225112epcas2p1469011fa8e11c1c31c1f867daeab106f@epcms2p3>
Precedence: bulk

>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 <quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com>
>Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
>---
> 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 <keosung.park@samsung.com>

Best Regards,
Keoseong