[PATCH 2/3] nvme: simplify __nvme_submit_sync_cmd() calling conventions
Nicky Chorley
ndchorley at gmail.com
Sat Jan 27 10:00:47 PST 2024
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024, hare at kernel.org wrote:
> ret = __nvme_submit_sync_cmd(ctrl->fabrics_q, &cmd, &res,
> - data, sizeof(*data), NVME_QID_ANY, 1,
> - BLK_MQ_REQ_RESERVED | BLK_MQ_REQ_NOWAIT);
> + data, sizeof(*data), NVME_QID_ANY,
> + NVME_SUBMIT_AT_HEAD |
> + NVME_SUBMIT_NOWAIT |
> + NVME_SUBMIT_RESERVED);
> if (ret) {
> nvmf_log_connect_error(ctrl, ret, le32_to_cpu(res.u32),
> &cmd, data);
> @@ -525,8 +527,10 @@ int nvmf_connect_io_queue(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl, u16 qid)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> ret = __nvme_submit_sync_cmd(ctrl->connect_q, &cmd, &res,
> - data, sizeof(*data), qid, 1,
> - BLK_MQ_REQ_RESERVED | BLK_MQ_REQ_NOWAIT);
> + data, sizeof(*data), qid,
> + NVME_SUBMIT_AT_HEAD |
> + NVME_SUBMIT_RESERVED |
> + NVME_SUBMIT_NOWAIT);
Is it worth writing the new flags in the first hunk above in the same
order as in the second (so NVME_SUBMIT_AT_HEAD | NVME_SUBMIT_RESERVED |
NVME_SUBMIT_NOWAIT)? That way they're consistent with the old ones so
might make reading the diff a little easier.
Nicky
More information about the Linux-nvme
mailing list