From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAE6F137921; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:18:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713295117; cv=none; b=S01ohVwhoBBwkz7vS9i6Vx7WnsJNVB77Eh6qNpk1joubxZOL2Yj6LGZiuqTUnesDjNCMe8YEnlz+dd88+YbIKRMRdq98B4HAVCRAFxe7ERy/SfGe7qbVdR6I/gfU3jmKPoiKB/KjhqLURKMx+bcDFbUXeOP4aol0nK2JwlSRRxw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713295117; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eFsQnwS6PGFtgDcFaHJVKvrfFzDGNqbI1upRmAGSdUs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Zefl1IMeAE2ZuHJIeYFuQlsuTAt8gL/UQwhKNwiKc5XPZePJLrXefg7Unh3acPFLjOhbxGXKbpYXpT+RHT2OTo71SwG9SPXg6ufg+eEhbyCpZjfcA0xYaK2KawEJEdiux+bG3uMD6eWsf+tacV0Q0XNI/BGbvL03S6/pwHxwgwY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=fx8QpHx7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="fx8QpHx7" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VJv2s5Ty9zlgTHp; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:18:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1713295108; x=1715887109; bh=eFsQnwS6PGFtgDcFaHJVKvrf FzDGNqbI1upRmAGSdUs=; b=fx8QpHx7MdXz4DWNF5sKx2pET/oKMw17BAId9stL 5lzAFPohxQeKZACWn35Z8lu+Ne42NFD8qXLHVetH5fTj1WFay6FH1Gfn/XoYRCKx kEYjzppO5JLFiPFgqOIcYv1hRVcxoy+yoL6LB9e8FQT8QgyxCPb8qFiv2vo0laLq /+sX5Uc/C0O7KWaFLCidfxjTC1Xu2wpCB1soWkDo6WptScusk9a38o+3Zf90YLEu HOBCLE0o5RKQaDzZ/SnkeEumTTSmZliH1sY2f5G7OSVCbTZfBi4umZWPkczglsW9 Pr7t9qwMb1oSjIo5s0agNOQYGEhfWupQHcPtSrFWZEl31g== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id gvqFSUSqaQat; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.96.154.26] (unknown [104.132.0.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4VJv2q3mZZzlgTsK; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <0b031b8f-c07c-42ef-af93-7336439d3c37@acm.org> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:18:25 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] scsi: ufs: core: Make use of guard(spinlock_irqsave) To: Avri Altman , "Martin K . Petersen" Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240416102348.614-1-avri.altman@wdc.com> <20240416102348.614-2-avri.altman@wdc.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20240416102348.614-2-avri.altman@wdc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/16/24 03:23, Avri Altman wrote: > +#define SERIALIZE_HOST_IRQSAVE(hba) guard(spinlock_irqsave)(hba->host->host_lock) Something I have brought up before: what does the host lock protect in the UFS driver? Rather than reworking the code that acquires and releases the host lock, all uses of the host lock should be eliminated from the UFS driver. The host lock should be replaced with new locks of which it is clearly documented what member variables these new locks protect. Thanks, Bart.