On 2019/08/28 19:43, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 28/08/2019 12:41, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 2019/08/28 17:16, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >>> What happened to my review comment for v1 of this patch? >>> >> >> I merged the renamed ELEVATOR_F_ZBD_SEQ_WRITE feature into this patch >> instead of >> following patch and separated the nullblk and sd_zbc changes into other >> patches. >> Well, at least that is what I understood you wanted... Did I misunderstand ? >> When tired, my english becomes fuzzy sometimes :) >> >> Please let me know if that is not what you wanted (it does seem so). > > I meant to useage of an 'unsigned int' vs. explicit u32/u64 for > 'elevator_features' >
I changed from unsigned long to unsigned int, which is always 32bits on any arch, no ? I preferred the use of unsigned int over u32/u64 as these look more like low level driver stuff... Did I miss something ? -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
