Hi Christoph
Many thanks for your kindly response.
On 01/04/2018 06:20 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This looks generally fine to me, ut a few nitpicks below:
>
>> - Based on Sagi's suggestion, add new state NVME_CTRL_ADMIN_LIVE.
>
> Maybe call this NVME_CTRL_ADMIN_ONLY ?
Sound more in line with the new state. Use it in next version.
>
>> - if (ctrl->state != NVME_CTRL_LIVE)
>> + if ((ctrl->state != NVME_CTRL_LIVE) &&
>> + (ctrl->state != NVME_CTRL_ADMIN_LIVE))
>
> No need for the inner braces, and odd indentation. Also in general
> I'm tempted to just use switch statements for things like this, e.g.
>
> switch (ctrl->state) {
> case NVME_CTRL_ADMIN_LIVE:
> case NVME_CTRL_LIVE:
> break;
> default:
> return -EWOULDBLOCK;
> }
>
Yes, it looks clearer and more readable. Use it in next version
>> @@ -3074,6 +3087,8 @@ static void nvme_scan_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> if (ctrl->state != NVME_CTRL_LIVE)
>> return;
>>
>> + BUG_ON(!ctrl->tagset);
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE() please.
Yes, use it in next version
>
>> + bool only_adminq = false;
>
> How about a new_state variable instead that holds the new state value?
>
Yes, it is more reasonable. Use it next version.
Thanks
Jianchao
