lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 14/16] scsi: sd: Add WRITE_ATOMIC_16 support
From
On 5/3/23 11:38, John Garry wrote:
> +static blk_status_t sd_setup_atomic_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd,
> + sector_t lba, unsigned int nr_blocks,
> + unsigned char flags)
> +{
> + cmd->cmd_len = 16;
> + cmd->cmnd[0] = WRITE_ATOMIC_16;
> + cmd->cmnd[1] = flags;
> + put_unaligned_be64(lba, &cmd->cmnd[2]);
> + cmd->cmnd[10] = 0;
> + cmd->cmnd[11] = 0;
> + put_unaligned_be16(nr_blocks, &cmd->cmnd[12]);
> + cmd->cmnd[14] = 0;
> + cmd->cmnd[15] = 0;
> +
> + return BLK_STS_OK;
> +}

A single space in front of the assignment operator please.

> +
> static blk_status_t sd_setup_read_write_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> {
> struct request *rq = scsi_cmd_to_rq(cmd);
> @@ -1149,6 +1166,7 @@ static blk_status_t sd_setup_read_write_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> unsigned int nr_blocks = sectors_to_logical(sdp, blk_rq_sectors(rq));
> unsigned int mask = logical_to_sectors(sdp, 1) - 1;
> bool write = rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE;
> + bool atomic_write = !!(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_ATOMIC) && write;

Isn't the !! superfluous in the above expression? I have not yet seen
any other kernel code where a flag test is used in a boolean expression
and where !! occurs in front of the flag test.

Thanks,

Bart.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-03 20:49    [W:0.258 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site