On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:44:36PM +0000, Don Brace wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Johannes Thumshirn [mailto:jthumsh...@suse.de]
[...]
> > > + while (1) {
> >
> > Is there any compelling reason why you didn't use scsi_for_each_sg()
> > here? I don't see a reason for the while (1) construct.
> >
> The PQI chaining makes using scsi_for_each_sg a little more difficult to
> maintain. We would prefer to leave the code as is.
Hmmm OK. The only other thing that springs to my mind is this:
for (i = 0; i <= sg_count; i++) {
pqi_set_sg_descriptor(sg_descriptor, sg);
if (!chained)
num_sg_in_iu++;
if (i == sg_count)
break;
which isn't neccesserily better to read...
>
> >
> > > + pqi_set_sg_descriptor(sg_descriptor, sg);
> > > + if (!chained)
> > > + num_sg_in_iu++;
> > > + i++;
> > > + if (i == sg_count)
> > > + break;
I guess we'll have to live with it then.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@suse.de>
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumsh...@suse.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
