Re: [PATCH RFC 14/16] scsi: sd: Add WRITE_ATOMIC_16 support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/05/2023 19:48, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 5/3/23 11:38, John Garry wrote:
+static blk_status_t sd_setup_atomic_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd,
+                    sector_t lba, unsigned int nr_blocks,
+                    unsigned char flags)
+{
+    cmd->cmd_len  = 16;
+    cmd->cmnd[0]  = WRITE_ATOMIC_16;
+    cmd->cmnd[1]  = flags;
+    put_unaligned_be64(lba, &cmd->cmnd[2]);
+    cmd->cmnd[10] = 0;
+    cmd->cmnd[11] = 0;
+    put_unaligned_be16(nr_blocks, &cmd->cmnd[12]);
+    cmd->cmnd[14] = 0;
+    cmd->cmnd[15] = 0;
+
+    return BLK_STS_OK;
+}

A single space in front of the assignment operator please.

ok


+
  static blk_status_t sd_setup_read_write_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
  {
      struct request *rq = scsi_cmd_to_rq(cmd);
@@ -1149,6 +1166,7 @@ static blk_status_t sd_setup_read_write_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)       unsigned int nr_blocks = sectors_to_logical(sdp, blk_rq_sectors(rq));
      unsigned int mask = logical_to_sectors(sdp, 1) - 1;
      bool write = rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE;
+    bool atomic_write = !!(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_ATOMIC) && write;

Isn't the !! superfluous in the above expression? I have not yet seen any other kernel code where a flag test is used in a boolean expression and where !! occurs in front of the flag test.

So you think that && means that (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_ATOMIC) will be auto a bool. Fine, I can change that.

Thanks,
John




[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux