Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 May 2023 11:48:41 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 14/16] scsi: sd: Add WRITE_ATOMIC_16 support | From | Bart Van Assche <> |
| |
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.
| |