Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-76098-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240220090805.2886914-1-rohitner@google.com> <1920a2f6-e398-47af-a5d7-9dad9c70e03d@acm.org>
 <c7635c10-1724-4db5-9568-d554e1c64f72@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <c7635c10-1724-4db5-9568-d554e1c64f72@quicinc.com>
From: Rohit Ner <rohitner@google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:57:33 +0530
Message-ID: <CAGt9f=T5352bo=K2OAa7QRMds=tQC1JspN+zQ2aYxNRDWGSVnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: Fix setup_xfer_req invocation
To: Can Guo <quic_cang@quicinc.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>, 
	Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>, 
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, 
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 2/21/24 01:13, Can Guo wrote:
> I am going to push some BUG fixes for Qualcomm UFSHCI MCQ engine, one of
> which would count on a vops in ufshcd_send_command(). My original plan
> was to add a new vops.mcq_setup_xfer_req() to differentiate from the
> existing one used in legacy mode. But if Rohit moves the existing
> .setup_xfer_req() up, I can use it instead of introducing the new one.

Hi Can,

Can we stick to the current approach of moving the .setup_xfer_req()
up, keeping in mind the following pros?
1. Avoid redundant callbacks for setting up transfers
2. Trim the duration for which hba->outstanding_lock is acquired unnecessarily

Thanks,
Rohit.