On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 18:16 +0900, damien.lemoal@xxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxx>
>
> The 'sense_deferred' variable in sd_done() is set only if
> 'sense_valid' is true. So it is not necessary and the result of
> scsi_sense_is_deferred() and of scsi_command_normalize_sense() can
> be combined together in 'sense_valid'.
>
> Also, since scsi_command_normalize_sense() returns a bool, use that
> type for 'sense_valid' declaration.
>
> No functional change is introduced by this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/sd.c | 14 +++++---------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> index 935ce34..c57084e 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> @@ -1808,8 +1808,7 @@ static int sd_done(struct scsi_cmnd *SCpnt)
> struct scsi_sense_hdr sshdr;
> struct scsi_disk *sdkp = scsi_disk(SCpnt->request->rq_disk);
> struct request *req = SCpnt->request;
> - int sense_valid = 0;
> - int sense_deferred = 0;
> + bool sense_valid = false;
> unsigned char op = SCpnt->cmnd[0];
> unsigned char unmap = SCpnt->cmnd[1] & 8;
>
> @@ -1837,15 +1836,12 @@ static int sd_done(struct scsi_cmnd *SCpnt)
> break;
> }
>
> - if (result) {
> - sense_valid = scsi_command_normalize_sense(SCpnt,
> &sshdr);
> - if (sense_valid)
> - sense_deferred =
> scsi_sense_is_deferred(&sshdr);
> - }
> + if (result)
> + sense_valid = scsi_command_normalize_sense(SCpnt,
> &sshdr) &&
> + !scsi_sense_is_deferred(&sshdr);
> sdkp->medium_access_timed_out = 0;
>
> - if (driver_byte(result) != DRIVER_SENSE &&
> - (!sense_valid || sense_deferred))
> + if (driver_byte(result) != DRIVER_SENSE && !sense_valid)
> goto out;
>
> switch (sshdr.sense_key) {
Really, no, you're making the code less clear for no gain. I'm fairly
certain the compiler can optimise this without any help and when you're
skimming the code you can easily see that the out jump is taken if you
have a sense code that's either invalid or deferred. After your change
you have to glance one level deeper to come to the same conclusion.
To be clear: I wouldn't object if the original function were written
the way you propose because we all get used to scanning code looking
for things like this. However, a patch to change existing code fails
the net benefit test.
James
