Hi,
在 2018/12/6 20:04, John Garry 写道:
On 06/12/2018 04:17, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
+
Bart,
Had you considered to use lower_32_bits() instead of "0x"?
That would to avoid that reviewers have to count the 'f'-s to verify
correctness of t10_pi_ref_tag().
I hadn't. I guess I tend
On 06/12/2018 04:17, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
+
Bart,
Had you considered to use lower_32_bits() instead of "0x"?
That would to avoid that reviewers have to count the 'f'-s to verify
correctness of t10_pi_ref_tag().
I hadn't. I guess I tend to think of lower_32_bits() as something
Bart,
> Had you considered to use lower_32_bits() instead of "0x"?
> That would to avoid that reviewers have to count the 'f'-s to verify
> correctness of t10_pi_ref_tag().
I hadn't. I guess I tend to think of lower_32_bits() as something you do
to pointers, not to block numbers.
--
On 12/5/18 6:04 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Since the return value of this function is 'u32', can the ' &
0x' be left out?
Absolutely, and I almost zapped it. However, I decided to leave it to
emphasize the point that the reference tag is truncated to a 32-bit
value. To me, this is
Hi Bart,
> Since the return value of this function is 'u32', can the ' &
> 0x' be left out?
Absolutely, and I almost zapped it. However, I decided to leave it to
emphasize the point that the reference tag is truncated to a 32-bit
value. To me, this is more obvious than having to
On 12/4/18 6:31 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Commit ddd0bc756983 ("block: move ref_tag calculation func to the block
layer") moved ref tag calculation from SCSI to a library function. However,
this change broke returning the correct ref tag for devices operating in
DIF mode since these do not
Commit ddd0bc756983 ("block: move ref_tag calculation func to the block
layer") moved ref tag calculation from SCSI to a library function. However,
this change broke returning the correct ref tag for devices operating in
DIF mode since these do not have an associated block integrity profile.
This
7 matches
Mail list logo
