On 14/09/2022 17:03, Coly Li wrote:
>
>
>> 2022年8月18日 22:56，Mateusz Kusiak <mateusz.kusiak@xxxxxxxxx> 写道：
>>
>> It prepares super-intel for change context->update to enum.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Kusiak <mateusz.kusiak@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> super-intel.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/super-intel.c b/super-intel.c
>> index 672f946e..3de3873e 100644
>> --- a/super-intel.c
>> +++ b/super-intel.c
>> @@ -3930,7 +3930,8 @@ static int update_super_imsm(struct supertype *st, struct mdinfo *info,
>>
>> mpb = super->anchor;
>>
>> - if (strcmp(update, "uuid") == 0) {
>> + switch (map_name(update_options, update)) {
>> + case UOPT_UUID:
>> /* We take this to mean that the family_num should be updated.
>> * However that is much smaller than the uuid so we cannot really
>> * allow an explicit uuid to be given. And it is hard to reliably
>> @@ -3954,10 +3955,14 @@ static int update_super_imsm(struct supertype *st, struct mdinfo *info,
>> }
>> if (rv == 0)
>> mpb->orig_family_num = info->uuid[0];
>> - } else if (strcmp(update, "assemble") == 0)
>> + break;
>> + case UOPT_SPEC_ASSEMBLE:
>> rv = 0;
>> - else
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> rv = -1;
>> + break;
>> + }
>>
>> /* successful update? recompute checksum */
>> if (rv == 0)
>> @@ -7888,18 +7893,25 @@ static int kill_subarray_imsm(struct supertype *st, char *subarray_id)
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> -
>> -static int get_rwh_policy_from_update(char *update)
>> +/**
>> + * get_rwh_policy_from_update() - Get the rwh policy for update option.
>> + * @update: Update option.
>> + */
>
>
> The above comment format is not the existed code comments style.
>
> For example for getinfo_super_disks_imsm() in same file,
>
> 3862 /* allocates memory and fills disk in mdinfo structure
> 3863 * for each disk in array */
> 3864 struct mdinfo *getinfo_super_disks_imsm(struct supertype *st)
>
I believe it matches kernel style descriptions, like in
imsm_get_free_size(). I can add "Return" part if you want me to.
I just noticed that empty line is missing before the function
description, I'll fix this in v2.
>
> [snipped]
>
> The rested part is fine to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Coly Li
