Re: [PATCH RFC 14/16] scsi: sd: Add WRITE_ATOMIC_16 support
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Date: 2023-05-03 18:49:09
Also in:
linux-block, linux-fsdevel, linux-nvme, linux-scsi, linux-xfs, lkml
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.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ 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. Thanks, Bart.