From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "hch@lst.de" Subject: Re: scsi: introduce a new result field in struct scsi_request Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:14:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20170419061444.GB6257@lst.de> References: <20170418155229.5977-1-hch@bombadil.infradead.org> <20170418155229.5977-8-hch@bombadil.infradead.org> <1492554858.2689.17.camel@sandisk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1492554858.2689.17.camel@sandisk.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "hch@bombadil.infradead.org" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "hch@lst.de" , "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" , "roger.pau@citrix.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "jbacik@fb.com" , "james.smart@broadcom.com" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:34:20PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Did you perhaps intend "req->result" instead of "rq->result"? Yes. > Did you intend "war" or is that perhaps a typo? I'll fix the comment. > > trace_scsi_dispatch_cmd_done(cmd); > > - blk_mq_complete_request(cmd->request, cmd->request->errors); > > + blk_mq_complete_request(cmd->request, 0); > > } > > Why has cmd->request->errors been changed into 0? Because the argument is only used to set req->errors, which we won't look at any more.