Re:Re: [PATCH] blk: use REQ_OP_WRITE instead of hard code

Yeah, you are right, thanks for your explanationMaybe we should define a MASK to do this? At 2020-10-19 22:09:40, "Johannes Thumshirn" wrote: >On 19/10/2020 16:06, Hui Su wrote: >> use REQ_OP_WRITE instead of hard code in >> op_is_write(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Hui Su >> --- >>

Re: [PATCH] blk: use REQ_OP_WRITE instead of hard code

On 19/10/2020 16:30, 苏辉 wrote: > Yeah, you are right, thanks for your explanationMaybe we should > define a MASK to do this? Why? I personally find a '& 1' way more understandable than a REQ_OP_IS_WRITE_MASK or sth like that. The former I can just read, for the latter I would need to look up

Re: [PATCH] blk: use REQ_OP_WRITE instead of hard code

On 19/10/2020 16:06, Hui Su wrote: > use REQ_OP_WRITE instead of hard code in > op_is_write(). > > Signed-off-by: Hui Su > --- > include/linux/blk_types.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h > index

[PATCH] blk: use REQ_OP_WRITE instead of hard code

use REQ_OP_WRITE instead of hard code in op_is_write(). Signed-off-by: Hui Su --- include/linux/blk_types.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h index 7d7c13238fdb..7b9b02378c24 100644 ---