Re: [PATCH 5/6] lightnvm: pblk: print incompatible line version correctly
From: Matias Bjørling <hidden>
Date: 2017-09-25 10:15:28
Also in:
lkml
On 09/22/2017 11:01 AM, Javier González wrote:
quoted
On 21 Sep 2017, at 13.28, Rakesh Pandit [off-list ref] wrote: Correct it by coverting little endian to cpu endian and also define a macro for line version so that maintenance is easy. Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <redacted> --- drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c | 2 +- drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c | 4 ++-- drivers/lightnvm/pblk.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c index 74ddb30..57583a1 100644 --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-core.c@@ -991,7 +991,7 @@ static int pblk_line_init_metadata(struct pblk *pblk, struct pblk_line *line,memcpy(smeta_buf->header.uuid, pblk->instance_uuid, 16); smeta_buf->header.id = cpu_to_le32(line->id); smeta_buf->header.type = cpu_to_le16(line->type); - smeta_buf->header.version = cpu_to_le16(1); + smeta_buf->header.version = SMETA_VERSION; /* Start metadata */ smeta_buf->seq_nr = cpu_to_le64(line->seq_nr);diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c index 1869eef..686bc17 100644 --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-recovery.c@@ -876,9 +876,9 @@ struct pblk_line *pblk_recov_l2p(struct pblk *pblk)if (le32_to_cpu(smeta_buf->header.identifier) != PBLK_MAGIC) continue; - if (le16_to_cpu(smeta_buf->header.version) != 1) { + if (smeta_buf->header.version != SMETA_VERSION) { pr_err("pblk: found incompatible line version %u\n", - smeta_buf->header.version); + le16_to_cpu(smeta_buf->header.version)); return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); }diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk.h b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk.h index eaf5397..87b1d7f 100644 --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk.h +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk.h@@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ enum {}; #define PBLK_MAGIC 0x70626c6b /*pblk*/ +#define SMETA_VERSION cpu_to_le16(1) struct line_header { __le32 crc; -- 2.5.0It's a different way of doing it, and it's fine to have a macro. Reviewed-by: Javier González <redacted>
Thanks, I picked it up.