From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
axboe@fb.com, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me,
baolin.wang7@gmail.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] nvme-pci: Use standard block status macro
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 08:05:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200708060505.GA4919@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200707190123.GB1997220@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdl.wdc.com>
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 12:01:23PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:49:24AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > static blk_status_t nvme_map_data(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req,
> > @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static blk_status_t nvme_map_metadata(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req,
> > if (dma_mapping_error(dev->dev, iod->meta_dma))
> > return BLK_STS_IOERR;
> > cmnd->rw.metadata = cpu_to_le64(iod->meta_dma);
> > - return 0;
> > + return BLK_STS_OK;
> > }
>
> This is fine, though it takes knowing that this value is 0 for the
> subsequent 'if (!ret)' check to make sense. Maybe those should change to
> 'if (ret != BLK_STS_OK)' so the check uses the same symbol as the
> return, and will always work in the unlikely event that the defines
> are reordered.
If you think this version is inconsistent I'd rather drop this patch.
The assumption that 0 == BLK_STS_OK is inherent all over the code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-08 6:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-03 2:49 [PATCH 0/5] Some cleanups for NVMe-pci driver Baolin Wang
2020-07-03 2:49 ` [PATCH 1/5] nvme-pci: Fix some comments issues Baolin Wang
2020-07-05 6:57 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-06 2:10 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2020-07-03 2:49 ` [PATCH 2/5] nvme-pci: Add a blank line after declarations Baolin Wang
2020-07-05 6:57 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-06 2:09 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2020-07-03 2:49 ` [PATCH 3/5] nvme-pci: Remove redundant segment validation Baolin Wang
2020-07-06 2:23 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2020-07-03 2:49 ` [PATCH 4/5] nvme-pci: Use the consistent return type of nvme_pci_iod_alloc_size() Baolin Wang
2020-07-05 6:59 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-06 2:24 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2020-07-03 2:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] nvme-pci: Use standard block status macro Baolin Wang
2020-07-05 7:00 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-06 2:25 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2020-07-07 19:01 ` Keith Busch
2020-07-08 1:25 ` Baolin Wang
2020-07-08 6:05 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-07-07 8:50 ` [PATCH 0/5] Some cleanups for NVMe-pci driver Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200708060505.GA4919@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=baolin.wang7@gmail.com \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox