The 09/29/2016 10:45, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:14:55AM -0700, Adam Manzanares wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * ata_ncq_prio_enabled - Test whether NCQ prio is enabled
> > + * @dev: ATA device to test for
> > + *
> > + * LOCKING:
> > + * spin_lock_irqsave(host lock)
> > + *
> > + * RETURNS:
> > + * 1 if NCQ prio is enabled for @dev, 0 otherwise.
> > + */
> > +static inline int ata_ncq_prio_enabled(struct ata_device *dev)
> > +{
> > + return (dev->flags & (ATA_DFLAG_PIO | ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_OFF |
> > + ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_PRIO)) == ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_PRIO;
>
> I'm not sure this needs to test PIO and NCQ_OFF. This functions
> pretty much can assume that it'd be only called in NCQ context, no?
>
This should only be called in the NCQ context so these checks are redundant
I'll clean this up in the next version of the patches.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
Take care,
Adam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
