lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 15/16] block: sed-opal: don't repeat opal_discovery0 in each steps array
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Derrick, Jonathan wrote:

> On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 23:44 +0100, David Kozub wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>>>> + /* first do a discovery0 */
>>>> + error = opal_discovery0_step(dev);
>>>>
>>>> + for (state = 0; !error && state < n_steps; state++)
>>>> + error = execute_step(dev, &steps[state], state);
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * For each OPAL command the first step in steps starts some sort of
>>>> + * session. If an error occurred in the initial discovery0 or if an
>>>> + * error occurred in the first step (and thus stopping the loop with
>>>> + * state == 1) then there was an error before or during the attempt to
>>>> + * start a session. Therefore we shouldn't attempt to terminate a
>>>> + * session, as one has not yet been created.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (error && state > 1)
>>>> + end_opal_session_error(dev);
>>>>
>>>> return error;
>>>
>>> The flow here is a little too condensed for my taste. Why not the
>>> plain obvoious, if a little longer:
>>>
>>> error = error = opal_discovery0_step(dev);
>>> if (error)
>>> return error;
>>>
>>> for (state = 0; state < n_steps; state++) {
>>> error = execute_step(dev, &steps[state], state);
>>> if (error)
>>> goto out_error;
>>> }
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> out_error:
>>> if (state > 1)
>>> end_opal_session_error(dev);
>>> return error;
>>
>> No problem, I can use this version. But I think there is a minor issue -
>> the same one I hit in my original change, just from the other direction:
>>
>> If the loop succeds for the 0-th element of steps, and then fails for the
>> 1st element, then state equals 1 yet the session has been started, so we
>> should close it.
>>
>> I think the condition in out_error should be if (state > 0).
>>
>> Best regards,
>> David
> Looks good with Christoph's suggestion (for 14/16) and your state check fix
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>

Hi Jon,

What suggestion by Christoph you have in mind? I don't see any for 14/16.
Currently, in my git repo, for this patch, I applied Christoph suggestion
for this (15/16) patch + the "state > 0" fix. Is this what you mean?

Best regards,
David

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-10 18:47    [W:0.073 / U:1.048 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site