On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 21:59 +0100, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> + /* sense not about current command is termed: deferred */
Do we really need comments that explain the SCSI specs? If such a comment is
added I think it should be added above the definition of
scsi_sense_is_deferred()
together with a reference to the "Sense data" section in SPC.
> + if (result == 0) {
> + /*
> + * Unprep the request and put it back at the head of the
> + * queue. A new command will be prepared and issued.
> + * This block is the same as case ACTION_REPREP in
> + * scsi_io_completion_action() above.
> */
> - if (q->mq_ops) {
> + if (q->mq_ops)
> scsi_mq_requeue_cmd(cmd);
> - } else {
> + else {
> scsi_release_buffers(cmd);
> scsi_requeue_command(q, cmd);
> }
Have these changes been verified with checkpatch? Checkpatch should have
reported
the following about the above chunk of code: Unbalanced braces around else
statement.
Additionally, have you considered to introduce a new function instead of
duplicating
existing code?
Otherwise this patch looks fine to me.
Thanks,
Bart.
