From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752220AbdHJJeJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:34:09 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:59013 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751675AbdHJJeH (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:34:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:34:05 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Johannes Thumshirn Cc: Benjamin Block , "James E . J . Bottomley" , "Martin K . Petersen" , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Steffen Maier , open-iscsi@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] bsg: refactor ioctl to use regular BSG-command infrastructure for SG_IO Message-ID: <20170810093405.GO24539@lst.de> References: <20170810082456.GI4841@linux-x5ow.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170810082456.GI4841@linux-x5ow.site> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:24:56AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:11:18PM +0200, Benjamin Block wrote: > > + return 0 == (bc->hdr.flags & BSG_FLAG_Q_AT_TAIL); > > return !(bc->hdr.flags & BSG_FLAG_Q_AT_TAIL); and make the function return > bool? I have to admit, this is the 1st time I have seen the above construct. It's a somewhat odd style. I agree with your comment, but otherwise the patch looks ok to me.