On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 12:01:23PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:49:24AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > static blk_status_t nvme_map_data(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request > > *req, > > @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static blk_status_t nvme_map_metadata(struct nvme_dev > > *dev, struct request *req, > > if (dma_mapping_error(dev->dev, iod->meta_dma)) > > return BLK_STS_IOERR; > > cmnd->rw.metadata = cpu_to_le64(iod->meta_dma); > > - return 0; > > + return BLK_STS_OK; > > } > > This is fine, though it takes knowing that this value is 0 for the > subsequent 'if (!ret)' check to make sense. Maybe those should change to > 'if (ret != BLK_STS_OK)' so the check uses the same symbol as the > return, and will always work in the unlikely event that the defines > are reordered.
If you think this version is inconsistent I'd rather drop this patch. The assumption that 0 == BLK_STS_OK is inherent all over the code.
