Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <81ce524d-6186-e016-f597-153d214036bf@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 11:48:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 14/16] scsi: sd: Add WRITE_ATOMIC_16 support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        kbusch@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, djwong@kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com,
        jejb@linux.ibm.com
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, paul@paul-moore.com,
        jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com
References: <20230503183821.1473305-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
 <20230503183821.1473305-15-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230503183821.1473305-15-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/3/23 11:38, John Garry wrote:
> +static blk_status_t sd_setup_atomic_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd,
> +					sector_t lba, unsigned int nr_blocks,
> +					unsigned char flags)
> +{
> +	cmd->cmd_len  = 16;
> +	cmd->cmnd[0]  = WRITE_ATOMIC_16;
> +	cmd->cmnd[1]  = flags;
> +	put_unaligned_be64(lba, &cmd->cmnd[2]);
> +	cmd->cmnd[10] = 0;
> +	cmd->cmnd[11] = 0;
> +	put_unaligned_be16(nr_blocks, &cmd->cmnd[12]);
> +	cmd->cmnd[14] = 0;
> +	cmd->cmnd[15] = 0;
> +
> +	return BLK_STS_OK;
> +}

A single space in front of the assignment operator please.

> +
>   static blk_status_t sd_setup_read_write_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>   {
>   	struct request *rq = scsi_cmd_to_rq(cmd);
> @@ -1149,6 +1166,7 @@ static blk_status_t sd_setup_read_write_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>   	unsigned int nr_blocks = sectors_to_logical(sdp, blk_rq_sectors(rq));
>   	unsigned int mask = logical_to_sectors(sdp, 1) - 1;
>   	bool write = rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE;
> +	bool atomic_write = !!(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_ATOMIC) && write;

Isn't the !! superfluous in the above expression? I have not yet seen 
any other kernel code where a flag test is used in a boolean expression 
and where !! occurs in front of the flag test.

Thanks,

Bart.