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;
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2023 07:01:15 +0300
From:   Konstantin Shelekhin <k.shelekhin@yadro.com>
To:     Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>
CC:     Lu Hongfei <luhongfei@vivo.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "open list:SCSI TARGET SUBSYSTEM" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SCSI TARGET SUBSYSTEM" <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "opensource.kernel@vivo.com" <opensource.kernel@vivo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: target: Fix the conversion to bool in
 iblock_execute_pr_out
Message-ID: <ZIfqC6xXn6uWvTPd@yadro.com>
References: <20230612081006.40821-1-luhongfei@vivo.com>
 <53382bf3-69eb-b297-70ea-22571b877a2f@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53382bf3-69eb-b297-70ea-22571b877a2f@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:04:28AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 6/12/23 01:10, Lu Hongfei wrote:
> > The return value of the '==' or '!=' operator are bool, so there's
> > no need to convert it to bool again in iblock_execute_pr_out.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lu Hongfei <luhongfei@vivo.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/target/target_core_iblock.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_iblock.c b/drivers/target/target_core_iblock.c
> > index 254c33c9788e..ea42cb5d06d4
> > --- a/drivers/target/target_core_iblock.c
> > +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_iblock.c
> > @@ -889,7 +889,7 @@ static sense_reason_t iblock_execute_pr_out(struct se_cmd *cmd, u8 sa, u64 key,
> >
> >               ret = ops->pr_preempt(bdev, key, sa_key,
> >                                     scsi_pr_type_to_block(type),
> > -                                   sa == PRO_PREEMPT ? false : true);
> > +                                   sa != PRO_PREEMPT);
> >               break;
> >       case PRO_RELEASE:
> >               if (!ops->pr_clear) {
> 
> this not a fix as current code is not broken ..

It looks much better though. And it's easier to understand.