On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:19:14 +0200 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 03 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote: > >> Preserve the cd->capacity indentation near the #if 0'd if() statement. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/scsi/sr.c | 26 ++++++++------------------ > >> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sr.c b/drivers/scsi/sr.c > >> index 27f5bfd..f1b650e 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/scsi/sr.c > >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sr.c > >> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ > >> #include <linux/blkdev.h> > >> #include <linux/mutex.h> > >> #include <asm/uaccess.h> > >> +#include <asm/unaligned.h> > >> > >> #include <scsi/scsi.h> > >> #include <scsi/scsi_dbg.h> > >> @@ -280,10 +281,7 @@ static int sr_done(struct scsi_cmnd *SCpnt) > >> case ILLEGAL_REQUEST: > >> if (!(SCpnt->sense_buffer[0] & 0x90)) > >> break; > >> - error_sector = (SCpnt->sense_buffer[3] << 24) | > >> - (SCpnt->sense_buffer[4] << 16) | > >> - (SCpnt->sense_buffer[5] << 8) | > >> - SCpnt->sense_buffer[6]; > >> + error_sector = get_unaligned_be32(SCpnt->sense_buffer + 3); > >> if (SCpnt->request->bio != NULL) > >> block_sectors = > >> bio_sectors(SCpnt->request->bio); > >> @@ -445,13 +443,9 @@ static int sr_prep_fn(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq) > >> SCpnt->sdb.length = this_count * s_size; > >> } > >> > >> - SCpnt->cmnd[2] = (unsigned char) (block >> 24) & 0xff; > >> - SCpnt->cmnd[3] = (unsigned char) (block >> 16) & 0xff; > >> - SCpnt->cmnd[4] = (unsigned char) (block >> 8) & 0xff; > >> - SCpnt->cmnd[5] = (unsigned char) block & 0xff; > >> + put_unaligned_be32(block, SCpnt->cmnd + 2); > >> SCpnt->cmnd[6] = SCpnt->cmnd[9] = 0; > >> - SCpnt->cmnd[7] = (unsigned char) (this_count >> 8) & 0xff; > >> - SCpnt->cmnd[8] = (unsigned char) this_count & 0xff; > >> + put_unaligned_be16(this_count, SCpnt->cmnd + 7); > >> > >> /* > >> * We shouldn't disconnect in the middle of a sector, so with a dumb > > > > Lets not please, it reduces readability a lot when you are used to SCSI > > cdb filling. > > > > > > I feel the opposite. That is: put_unaligned_be32(block, SCpnt->cmnd + 2); > is much more readable for me. Coming from the spec, I'm looking for a __b32 > at offset CDB+2 and not: "SCpnt->cmnd[4] = (unsigned char) (block >> 8) & 0xff;" > At offset CDB+4 the 2nd-or-3rd? order byte of "block". > > And for BE systems it's a gain. So please DO Yeah. For neophytes it's a good change. This: SCpnt->cmnd[2] = (unsigned char) (block >> 24) & 0xff; SCpnt->cmnd[3] = (unsigned char) (block >> 16) & 0xff; SCpnt->cmnd[4] = (unsigned char) (block >> 8) & 0xff; SCpnt->cmnd[5] = (unsigned char) block & 0xff; is "wtf is that doing?", whereas this: put_unaligned_be32(block, SCpnt->cmnd + 2); is "ah, I know what that's doing". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
