On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 12:57 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:05 PM > > To: KY Srinivasan > > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Haiyang Zhang > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 097/117] Staging: hv: storvsc: Add code to handle IDE devices > > using the storvsc driver > > > > Thanks, this looks much cleaner than the initial variant. > > > > > + if (dev_is_ide) { > > > + storvsc_get_ide_info(device, &target, &path); > > > + host_dev->path = device_info.path_id; > > > + host_dev->target = device_info.target_id; > > > + } else { > > > + host_dev->path = device_info.path_id; > > > + host_dev->target = device_info.target_id; > > > + } > > > > Is using the device_info values in both branches intentional? If so > > there's no need to have these assignments duplicated. > > While we set the values in both the branches, the value set is different; > The IDE side encodes the bits differently and is appropriately parsed in the > function storvsc_get_ide_info(). Is think that what Christoph meant was simplifying it to: if (dev_is_ide) storvsc_get_ide_info(device, &target, &path); host_dev->path = device_info.path_id; host_dev->target = device_info.target_id; -- Sasha. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
