From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EEF5C07E9C for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 05:30:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8604261CB9 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 05:30:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230284AbhGGFcj (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2021 01:32:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60852 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230266AbhGGFch (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2021 01:32:37 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x22a.google.com (mail-oi1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514AFC061760; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 22:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id m3so2059577oig.10; Tue, 06 Jul 2021 22:29:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wUUA/OMHV43Qf9wUeTFKaW1N3Z/e6TEsnjEdV6JbzIs=; b=O8yBFIWxpmsOT8njJ5ahG6yy2+FKk0r/sJSXeoapbK3qHq6/+XtSfSioINKw1vbUWM FMsKt35md4p3OQtSQP1Qp+mOKFUs7yR8TJPugozcZ2gkL/NxxNQxfIBpvZmzntFtUAaF KkKE9sUAzTpTbwHWkOq8viGRF2MGKISSAKVTsElsA7yq0Il8xKreetA3vCmvMTb9IsV/ aH4QM22S94q870EL2ke3K76G/Y4nuVWliOLvQlGy2jJKVlmcVper9QbzhqhTxrrKUXnh vodfXdZGEQ1ae+yoIW0MHTEiLcwzs5MXmVB0sRC/sGRNcvAqdePJiplJ+0b5f3RoLPyt Fh3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wUUA/OMHV43Qf9wUeTFKaW1N3Z/e6TEsnjEdV6JbzIs=; b=GdpZM9KPLBXNbC8/zSBM9PkTYUBXTta1Z4qGsWRWRUOzPEQHknlQsSsBEk0A+f/yiM QtmYyZkSZc0VWvb3c+IfELs4zw/0i8vTGvXaMQzmiZ7XbOBQYL78pJddbsVKBEGpJsdV z03ef9QbSg7TZ7j3xpZ48n3sz1hs3eGtGgIrlKeVxLZVSJxevwvLX/AUCV8bHM/Yuldd WpGKY/W3G+VKIexbIgQH9rj6hLbqmygfs5slEveNXB8bMfqbfSOFrcLDx9J6mnP/wavA gHXtdjsucbhm0tsOUsMvD5pWzij2Vfdg+UIdrIHYuQST+8J6bUQ5yiJK50hUya/H/h5e IsHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5333pzx+FRbof/9DLSOy0KIJ+3KeUJCXC4jJeHfwZHFkrt+MxplV hIQz7uRU7wJluQ5rD6FWErUo8WpSEW4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJ0AdXsGTVs36rKWCYXnpFMyQdSNRdGzqmXJVaBZcD+eKUB/zaPijFL7uxcJJBXgE8HbugbQ== X-Received: by 2002:aca:5793:: with SMTP id l141mr3429760oib.14.1625635796642; Tue, 06 Jul 2021 22:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fractal.attlocal.net ([2600:1700:1151:2380:3ec5:124:b596:7a55]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm3284843oou.0.2021.07.06.22.29.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 06 Jul 2021 22:29:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Satya Tangirala To: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jens Axboe , Eric Biggers , Satya Tangirala , Satya Tangirala Subject: [PATCH v4 5/9] ufshcd: handle error from blk_ksm_register() Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 22:29:39 -0700 Message-Id: <20210707052943.3960-6-satyaprateek2357@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.1 In-Reply-To: <20210707052943.3960-1-satyaprateek2357@gmail.com> References: <20210707052943.3960-1-satyaprateek2357@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org From: Satya Tangirala Handle any error from blk_ksm_register() in the callers. Previously, the callers ignored the return value because blk_ksm_register() wouldn't fail as long as the request_queue didn't have integrity support too, but as this is no longer the case, it's safer for the callers to just handle the return value appropriately. Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala --- drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-crypto.c | 13 +++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-crypto.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-crypto.c index d70cdcd35e43..0fcf9d6752f8 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-crypto.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-crypto.c @@ -233,6 +233,15 @@ void ufshcd_init_crypto(struct ufs_hba *hba) void ufshcd_crypto_setup_rq_keyslot_manager(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct request_queue *q) { - if (hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_CRYPTO) - blk_ksm_register(&hba->ksm, q); + if (hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_CRYPTO) { + /* + * This WARN_ON should never trigger since &hba->ksm won't be + * "empty" (i.e. will support at least 1 crypto capability), a + * UFS device's request queue doesn't support integrity, and + * it also satisfies all the block layer constraints (i.e. + * supports SG gaps, doesn't have chunk sectors, has a + * sufficiently large supported max_segments per bio) + */ + WARN_ON(!blk_ksm_register(&hba->ksm, q)); + } } -- 2.25.1