On 2020-06-19 08:57, Cornelia Huck wrote:
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.
Thanks,
I respin soon.
Regards,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
