On 5/3/21 15:17, ran.anner@dell.com wrote:

 
+static inline bool nvmet_cc_en(u32 cc)
+{
+	return (cc >> NVME_CC_EN_SHIFT) & 0x1;
+}
+
+static inline u8 nvmet_cc_css(u32 cc)
+{
+	return (cc >> NVME_CC_CSS_SHIFT) & 0x7;
+}
+
+static inline u8 nvmet_cc_mps(u32 cc)
+{
+	return (cc >> NVME_CC_MPS_SHIFT) & 0xf;
+}
+
+static inline u8 nvmet_cc_ams(u32 cc)
+{
+	return (cc >> NVME_CC_AMS_SHIFT) & 0x7;
+}
+
+static inline u8 nvmet_cc_shn(u32 cc)
+{
+	return (cc >> NVME_CC_SHN_SHIFT) & 0x3;
+}
+
+static inline u8 nvmet_cc_iosqes(u32 cc)
+{
+	return (cc >> NVME_CC_IOSQES_SHIFT) & 0xf;
+}
+
+static inline u8 nvmet_cc_iocqes(u32 cc)
+{
+	return (cc >> NVME_CC_IOCQES_SHIFT) & 0xf;
+}

Why are we bloating header file ?

If I remember the code correctly some of these functions are
only used in the target/core.c so there is no point in moving
those unless we have callers in the second file.

CC all the maintainers for NVMeOF target to get the better
response.



_______________________________________________
Linux-nvme mailing list
Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme