On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 02:19:54PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:34:45PM +0530, Abhishek Tamboli wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:04:33AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:15:28AM +0200, 'Oliver Neukum' via USB Mass Storage on Linux wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 30.07.24 19:56, Abhishek Tamboli wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 09:09:05AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 1. use a constant, where a constant is used > > > > > I think you are suggesting that I should replace hard-coded values like the > > > > > buffer size with named constants. For example: > > > > > > > > > > #define BUF_SIZE 8 > > > > > unsigned char buf[BUF_SIZE]; > > > > > > > > Yes, but the constant we need to look at here is bl_len. > > > > This is a variable needlessly. > > > > > > The code in ms_scsi_read_capacity() is written that way to be consistent > > > with the sd_scsi_read_capacity() routine. Or maybe it was just > > > copied-and-pasted, and then the variable's type was changed for no good > > > reason. > > > > > > Replacing the variable with a constant won't make much difference. The > > > compiler will realize that bl_len has a constant value and will generate > > > appropriate code anyway. I think just changing the type is a fine fix. > > > > > > > > > 2. use the macros for converting endianness > > > > > Can I use macros like cpu_to_le32 for converting the bl_num and bl_len values. > > > > > Should I replace all instances of manual bitwise shifts with these macros? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > > > > > u32 bl_len = 0x200; > > > > > buf[0] = cpu_to_le32(bl_num) >> 24; > > > > > buf[4] = cpu_to_le32(bl_len) >> 24; > > > > > > > > > > Is using cpu_to_le32 appropriate for the data format required by this > > > > > device? > > > > > > > > Well, the format is big endian. So, cpu_to_be32() will be required. > > > > > > Better yet, use put_unaligned_be32(). > > Would you recommend submitting a follow-up patch to incorporate this change, or should I leave it as is for now. > > You can submit another patch as a clean-up, if you want. But as I said, > it isn't needed. > > > >However, there's nothing really > > >wrong with the code as it stands. It doesn't need to be changed now. > > As you mentioned there's no need to change the code, So my initial patch is okay as is? > > It is as far as I'm concerned. Obviously Oliver has a different > opinion. But I'm the Maintainer of the usb-storage driver, so my > opinion counts for more than his does, in this case. :-) Thank you for your clarification and support. I appreciate your feedback. I'm glad to know that my initial patch is acceptable to you. Thanks & Regards Abhishek Tamboli
