[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170810093405.GO24539@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:34:05 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
Cc: Benjamin Block <bblock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
open-iscsi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] bsg: refactor ioctl to use regular BSG-command
infrastructure for SG_IO
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists