[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <83fad2a2-5c31-b869-7e30-fb2182659518@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:42:09 +0000
From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
To: "j-young.choi@...sung.com" <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
"kbusch@...nel.org" <kbusch@...nel.org>,
"axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"chaitanya.kulkarni@....com" <chaitanya.kulkarni@....com>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-integrity: add rq_integrity_payload_size helper
>> +
>> +static inline unsigned int rq_integrity_payload_size(struct request
>> *rq)
>> +{
>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(queue_max_integrity_segments(rq->q) > 1))
>> + return 0;
>> + return rq->bio->bi_integrity->bip_iter.bi_size;
>> +}
>> #else /* CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY */
>> static inline int blk_rq_count_integrity_sg(struct request_queue *q,
>> struct bio *b)
>
> from the comments that I got in the past, you should only be adding
> a helper in the patch that is actually using it.
>
> -ck
>
>
disregard my comment, I think this is correct looking at the next patch...
-ck
Powered by blists - more mailing lists