Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:46:18 +0100 (CET) | From | David Kozub <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |