Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] bsg: add io_uring command support to generic layer

[Yang Xiuwei <yangxiuwei@kylinos.cn>]

Hi Bart,

On 3/12/26 7:33 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 3/12/26 2:22 AM, Yang Xiuwei wrote:
>> +static int bsg_uring_cmd(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd, unsigned int issue_flags)
>> +{
>> +	struct request_queue *q;
>> +	struct bsg_device *bd;
>> +	bool open_for_write = ioucmd->file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	bd = to_bsg_device(file_inode(ioucmd->file));
>> +	q = bd->queue;
>>
>> Please combine the above assignments with the declarations of the
>> modified variables.
>

To follow your suggestion, I now combine the declarations with the
initializations, but I had to keep the dependency order between `bd`
and `q`, since `q` is initialized from `bd->queue`. The current version
looks like this:

        struct bsg_device *bd = to_bsg_device(file_inode(ioucmd->file));
        bool open_for_write = ioucmd->file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE;
        struct request_queue *q = bd->queue;
        int ret;
		
This way we respect the declaration+initialization style and keep the
data dependency clear, while following the reverse Christmas tree style
as far as it does not conflict with the dependency.
Does this arrangement look reasonable to you, or would you prefer a
different ordering here?

Thanks,
Yang Xiuwei