RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] scsi: ufshpb: Add host control mode support to rsp_upiu

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

 



> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 11:24:04AM +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 10:30:00AM +0200, Avri Altman wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.h
> > > > index afeb6365daf8..5ec4023db74d 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.h
> > > > @@ -48,6 +48,11 @@ enum UFSHPB_MODE {
> > > >       HPB_DEVICE_CONTROL,
> > > >  };
> > > >
> > > > +enum HPB_RGN_FLAGS {
> > > > +     RGN_FLAG_UPDATE = 0,
> > > > +     RGN_FLAG_DIRTY,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > >  enum UFSHPB_STATE {
> > > >       HPB_PRESENT = 1,
> > > >       HPB_SUSPEND,
> > > > @@ -109,6 +114,7 @@ struct ufshpb_region {
> > > >
> > > >       /* below information is used by lru */
> > > >       struct list_head list_lru_rgn;
> > > > +     unsigned long rgn_flags;
> > >
> > > Why an unsigned long for a simple enumerated type?  And why not make
> > > this "type safe" by explicitly saying this is an enumerated type
> > > variable?
> > I am using it for atomic bit operations.
> 
> That's not obvious given you have an enumerated type above.  Seems like
> an odd mix...
Done.
Will make it clear that those are bit indices.





[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