Oh I made a mistake on this one then. Since I send it with another patch, should I resend that alone? On 27 February 2016 at 04:16, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2016-02-27 at 04:07 +0800, tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c >> index 1179ec1..9eeee51 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c >> @@ -2786,7 +2786,7 @@ static void sd_read_write_same(struct scsi_disk >> *sdkp, unsigned char *buffer) >> * CODES is unsupported and the device has an ATA >> * Information VPD page (SAT). >> */ >> - if (!scsi_get_vpd_page(sdev, 0x89, buffer, >> vpd_buf_len)) >> + if (scsi_get_vpd_page(sdev, 0x89, buffer, >> vpd_buf_len)) >> sdev->no_write_same = 1; >> } > > > If you're inverting the condition, you'd need to invert the comment as > well. scsi_get_vpd_page returns 0 on success so !scsi_get_vpd_page is > true if it got the page (which is what the comment says). > > James > -- 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
