On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 08:43:18AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > And a further nit-pick: the function is called > __scsi_error_from_host_byte(), so it's only logical that it would only > check the host_byte(). > What's wrong is the _usage_ here; after calling > __scsi_error_from_host_byte() we need to check if the _other_ bits of > the results are non-zero to end up with a valid result. > > Hence I would advocate to either rename this function > (__scsi_error_from_result() ?) or evaluate the remaining bits outside > this function. > > But I would advocate for the former; otherwise the same issue will crop > up again in the future. Please also drop the pointless double underscore prefix while at it, otherwise fully agreed.
