From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libata: allow sata_sil24 to opt-out of tag ordered
 submission
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:12:49 -0500
Message-ID: <20150119141249.GA8140@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <20150116231225.18771.75061.stgit@viggo.jf.intel.com>
 <20150116231302.18771.62862.stgit@viggo.jf.intel.com>
 <54BA409E.4040901@cogentembedded.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54BA409E.4040901@cogentembedded.com>
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Ronny Hegewald <Ronny.Hegewald@online.de>, stable@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 01:59:42PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> >  	for (i = 0, tag = ap->last_tag + 1; i < max_queue; i++, tag++) {
> >-		tag = tag < max_queue ? tag : 0;
> >+		if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_LOWTAG)
> >+			tag = i;
> >+		else
> >+			tag = tag < max_queue ? tag : 0;
> 
>    Ugh, this is clear abuse of the ?: operator... Why not simply:
> 
> 		else if (tag >= max_queue)
> 			tag = 0;

Why is that a clear abuse?  Seems like a pretty typical use to me.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun