On 2018-03-26 08:13 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 21:59 +0100, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
+ /* sense not about current command is termed: deferred */
Do we really need comments that explain the SCSI specs? If such a comment is
added I think it should be added above the definition of scsi_sense_is_deferred()
together with a reference to the "Sense data" section in SPC.
+ if (result == 0) {
+ /*
+ * Unprep the request and put it back at the head of the
+ * queue. A new command will be prepared and issued.
+ * This block is the same as case ACTION_REPREP in
+ * scsi_io_completion_action() above.
*/
- if (q->mq_ops) {
+ if (q->mq_ops)
scsi_mq_requeue_cmd(cmd);
- } else {
+ else {
scsi_release_buffers(cmd);
scsi_requeue_command(q, cmd);
}
Have these changes been verified with checkpatch? Checkpatch should have reported
the following about the above chunk of code: Unbalanced braces around else statement.
Yes they were, did you check them? If so, with what command line options?
Since with no options <mkp-4.17/scsi-queue>/scripts/checkpatch.pl returns
clean for all patches in this set.
Additionally, have you considered to introduce a new function instead of duplicating
existing code?
Yes, that could be done.
Otherwise this patch looks fine to me.
Doug Gilbert
