On 02/09/2016 09:41 AM, Manoj Kumar wrote: >> Yeah, I can see how that is confusing. Since, all three possible valid >> crq message types have the first bit set I think this was originally a >> cute hack to grab anything that was likely valid. Then in >> ibmvscsi_handle_crq() we explicitly match the full header value in a >> switch statement logging anything that turned out actually invalid. >> >>> >>> If 'valid' will only have one of these four enums defined, would >>> this be better written as: >>> >>> if (crq->valid != VIOSRP_CRQ_FREE) >> >> This definitely would make the logic easier to read and follow. Also, >> this would make sure any crq with an invalid header that doesn't have >> its first bit set will also be logged by the ibmvscsi_handle_crq() >> switch statement default block and not silently ignored. >> >> -Tyrel > > Sounds good, Tyrel. Does this mean I should expect a v2 of this patch > series? > > - Manoj N. Kumar Haven't had a chance to clean up and resubmit, but yes there will be a v2 coming along soon. -Tyrel > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > -- 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
