lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 15/16] block: sed-opal: don't repeat opal_discovery0 in each steps array
    On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Derrick, Jonathan wrote:

    > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 23:44 +0100, David Kozub wrote:
    >> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    >>
    >>>> + /* first do a discovery0 */
    >>>> + error = opal_discovery0_step(dev);
    >>>>
    >>>> + for (state = 0; !error && state < n_steps; state++)
    >>>> + error = execute_step(dev, &steps[state], state);
    >>>> +
    >>>> + /*
    >>>> + * For each OPAL command the first step in steps starts some sort of
    >>>> + * session. If an error occurred in the initial discovery0 or if an
    >>>> + * error occurred in the first step (and thus stopping the loop with
    >>>> + * state == 1) then there was an error before or during the attempt to
    >>>> + * start a session. Therefore we shouldn't attempt to terminate a
    >>>> + * session, as one has not yet been created.
    >>>> + */
    >>>> + if (error && state > 1)
    >>>> + end_opal_session_error(dev);
    >>>>
    >>>> return error;
    >>>
    >>> The flow here is a little too condensed for my taste. Why not the
    >>> plain obvoious, if a little longer:
    >>>
    >>> error = error = opal_discovery0_step(dev);
    >>> if (error)
    >>> return error;
    >>>
    >>> for (state = 0; state < n_steps; state++) {
    >>> error = execute_step(dev, &steps[state], state);
    >>> if (error)
    >>> goto out_error;
    >>> }
    >>>
    >>> return 0;
    >>>
    >>> out_error:
    >>> if (state > 1)
    >>> end_opal_session_error(dev);
    >>> return error;
    >>
    >> No problem, I can use this version. But I think there is a minor issue -
    >> the same one I hit in my original change, just from the other direction:
    >>
    >> If the loop succeds for the 0-th element of steps, and then fails for the
    >> 1st element, then state equals 1 yet the session has been started, so we
    >> should close it.
    >>
    >> I think the condition in out_error should be if (state > 0).
    >>
    >> Best regards,
    >> David
    > Looks good with Christoph's suggestion (for 14/16) and your state check fix
    >
    >
    > Reviewed-by: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>

    Hi Jon,

    What suggestion by Christoph you have in mind? I don't see any for 14/16.
    Currently, in my git repo, for this patch, I applied Christoph suggestion
    for this (15/16) patch + the "state > 0" fix. Is this what you mean?

    Best regards,
    David

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-02-10 18:47    [W:3.781 / U:1.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site