Re: [PATCH 1/2 blktests] src/miniublk: switch to ioctl-encoded ublk commands

[Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>]

On Jun 22, 2026 / 15:34, Sebastian Chlad wrote:
[...]
> > > diff --git a/src/miniublk.c b/src/miniublk.c
> > > index f98f850..5a35ca7 100644
> > > --- a/src/miniublk.c
> > > +++ b/src/miniublk.c
> > [...]
> > > @@ -624,9 +624,9 @@ static int ublk_queue_io_cmd(struct ublk_queue *q,
> > >               return 0;
> > >
> > >       if (io->flags & UBLKSRV_NEED_COMMIT_RQ_COMP)
> > > -             cmd_op = UBLK_IO_COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ;
> > > -     else if (io->flags & UBLKSRV_NEED_FETCH_RQ)
> > > -             cmd_op = UBLK_IO_FETCH_REQ;
> > > +             cmd_op = UBLK_U_IO_COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ;
> > > +     else
> > > +             cmd_op = UBLK_U_IO_FETCH_REQ;
> >
> > The hunk above changes the "else if" part, is this intentional?
> >
> 
> Yes, this is intentional because we already check things in
>     if (!(io->flags &
>         (UBLKSRV_NEED_FETCH_RQ | UBLKSRV_NEED_COMMIT_RQ_COMP)))
> which returns early if neither flag is set, so checking the first
> condition makes another check redundant as by that
> time we know we need UBLK_U_IO_FETCH_REQ.

Thanks for the explanation. Now I see your point.

> 
> However if you think it's safer to still check if io->flags &
> UBLKSRV_NEED_FETCH_RQ, I can implement it this way in the v2.
> Let me know what you prefer.

I think it's the better to keep the current

  "else if (io->flags & UBLKSRV_NEED_FETCH_RQ)"

form. Even though the change is small and will not affect the code behavior, it
is against "single purpose with single patch" guide. Anyone who looks at the
commit in future may have the same question as mine.