Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:14:31 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@raithlin.com>,
        Martin Oliveira <Martin.Oliveira@eideticom.com>,
        David Sloan <David.Sloan@eideticom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] md/raid5: Factor out helper from
 raid5_make_request() loop
Message-ID: <YmD2R0AJ54yPRZhR@infradead.org>
References: <20220420195425.34911-1-logang@deltatee.com>
 <20220420195425.34911-6-logang@deltatee.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220420195425.34911-6-logang@deltatee.com>
Precedence: bulk

> +	if (unlikely(conf->reshape_progress != MaxSector)) {
> +		/* spinlock is needed as reshape_progress may be

Normal kernel style is to stat with a

		/*

line and to captalize the first word.  (also applies for a few other
comments).

> +		if (must_retry) {
> +			raid5_release_stripe(sh);
> +			return STRIPE_SCHEDULE_AND_RETRY;

The raid5_release_stripe cleanup is duplicated a few times.  I think
using goto based unwinding would be hepful in this function.