On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:20:53 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/22/2010 02:55 PM, Neil Brown wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:44:53 +0300 > > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >> when taking a resolute of a bit-wise AND as true false. Better / faster > >> to make it a boolean operation. > >> > >> This fixes a bug and a crash because the flags field did not fit into > >> the bool operands. > > > > No, that won't work. > > Read the rest of the code and see where 'do_sync' and 'do_barriers' are used. > > > > NeilBrown > > > > You are right! (I didn't look) > > the use of "bool" was wrong from the get go. it was never a bool operation. > What was the guy thinking? What is that do_XXX name? that name should change > as well. Perhaps flg_sync, flg_barriers. Check the git history - 'bool' was originally appropriate. But when the value was recently changed, the type and name were not. I would actually prefer "sync_flg" and "barrier_flg", but your suggestion that we change the name as well as the type is a good one. Thanks, NeilBrown -- 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
