Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:06:12 -0000 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r345805 - head/sys/cam Message-ID: <56a5de69-fa77-8d34-6743-b74d0db05eec@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <E04D8DC1-5C88-4735-8453-EDB987B2B840@gmail.com> References: <201904021446.x32EkBM7016545@repo.freebsd.org> <E04D8DC1-5C88-4735-8453-EDB987B2B840@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi.
On 02.04.2019 12:43, Enji Cooper wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 2019, at 07:46, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> @@ -1595,14 +1596,21 @@ camperiphscsistatuserror(union ccb *ccb, union ccb **o
>> * Restart the queue after either another
>> * command completes or a 1 second timeout.
>> */
>> - if ((sense_flags & SF_RETRY_BUSY) != 0 ||
>> - (ccb->ccb_h.retry_count--) > 0) {
>> + periph = xpt_path_periph(ccb->ccb_h.path);
>> + if (periph->flags & CAM_PERIPH_INVALID) {
>
> Is there a reason why this style is inconsistent with the other part of the change by not explicitly testing for “!= 0”?
Not really, I've just copied this chunk from other place where it was
this way. Bug I generally prefer more compact code where possible, and
I don't see style(9) saying it is bad to do so here. But if it hurts
somebody, I see no problem to change it.
--
Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56a5de69-fa77-8d34-6743-b74d0db05eec>