Hi.
On 02.04.2019 12:43, Enji Cooper wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 2019, at 07:46, Alexander Motin <m...@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
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
