[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17c90e55-4560-fa37-398a-4de3838704ca@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:02:27 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
<joro@...tes.org>, <will@...nel.org>, <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
<martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <hch@....de>,
<m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, <robin.murphy@....com>
CC: <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] scsi: core: Cap shost max_sectors according to DMA
limits only once
On 01/07/2022 00:41, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>
>> shost->dma_dev = dma_dev;
>>
>> + if (dma_dev->dma_mask) {
>> + shost->max_sectors = min_t(unsigned int, shost->max_sectors,
>> + dma_max_mapping_size(dma_dev) >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
>> + }
> Nit: you could remove the curly brackets... But it being a multi-line
> statement, having them is OK too I think.
>
tglx seems to think that they are ok, and I generally agree (now):
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/877djwdorz.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/
AFAICT coding-style.rst is ok with them in this scenario too
Cheers,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists