Re: [PATCH RFC 14/16] scsi: sd: Add WRITE_ATOMIC_16 support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux