Re: [PATCH 10/24] scsi: introduce set_status_byte()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/22/19 12:12 AM, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> 
>> To be in-line with the other set_XX_byte() functions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h | 5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h b/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
>> index 91bd749a02f7..6932d91472d5 100644
>> --- a/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
>> +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
>> @@ -307,6 +307,11 @@ static inline struct scsi_data_buffer *scsi_prot(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>>  #define scsi_for_each_prot_sg(cmd, sg, nseg, __i)		\
>>  	for_each_sg(scsi_prot_sglist(cmd), sg, nseg, __i)
>>  
>> +static inline void set_status_byte(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, char status)
>> +{
>> +	cmd->result = (cmd->result & 0xffffff00) | status;
> 
> Is sign-extension desirable here? Do callers need it?
> 
It'll be a theoretical issue, as a status value with the top bit set
would be invalid anyway.
But for consistencies sake I'll make it an unsigned char in the next
iteration.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@xxxxxxx			                  +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 247165 (AG München), GF: Felix Imendörffer



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux