The 09/29/2016 10:45, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:14:55AM -0700, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > +/** > > + * ata_ncq_prio_enabled - Test whether NCQ prio is enabled > > + * @dev: ATA device to test for > > + * > > + * LOCKING: > > + * spin_lock_irqsave(host lock) > > + * > > + * RETURNS: > > + * 1 if NCQ prio is enabled for @dev, 0 otherwise. > > + */ > > +static inline int ata_ncq_prio_enabled(struct ata_device *dev) > > +{ > > + return (dev->flags & (ATA_DFLAG_PIO | ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_OFF | > > + ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_PRIO)) == ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_PRIO; > > I'm not sure this needs to test PIO and NCQ_OFF. This functions > pretty much can assume that it'd be only called in NCQ context, no? >
This should only be called in the NCQ context so these checks are redundant I'll clean this up in the next version of the patches. > Thanks. > > -- > tejun Take care, Adam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html