On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:55:52 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2020-06-17 11:54, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:32:01 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(...)
> >> +int start_subchannel(unsigned int sid, int code, void *data, int count,
> >> + unsigned char flags)
> >> +{
> >> + int cc;
> >> + struct ccw1 *ccw = &unique_ccw;
> >
> > Hm... it might better to call this function "start_single_ccw" or
> > something like that.
>
> You are right.
> I will rework this.
> What about differentiating this badly named "start_subchannel()" into:
>
> ccw_setup_ccw(ccw, data, cnt, flgs);
> ccw_setup_orb(orb, ccw, flgs)
> ccw_start_request(schid, orb);
>
> would be much clearer I think.
Not sure about ccw_setup_ccw; might get a bit non-obvious if you're
trying to build a chain.
Let's see how this turns out.
(...)
> I will rework this.
>
> - rework the start_subchannel()
> - rework the read_len() if we ever need this
I think checking the count after the request concluded is actually a
good idea. In the future, we could also add a check that it matches the
requested length for a request where SLI was not specified.
>
> Also thinking to put the irq_io routine inside the library, it will be
> reused by other tests.
Yes, that probably makes sense as well.
