Hi David, On Sun, 2019-02-10 at 18:46 +0100, David Kozub wrote: > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Derrick, Jonathan wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 23:44 +0100, David Kozub wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > > > + /* first do a discovery0 */ > > > > > + error = opal_discovery0_step(dev); > > > > > > > > > > + for (state = 0; !error && state < n_steps; state++) > > > > > + error = execute_step(dev, &steps[state], state); This was implemented in v4's 14/16, rather than this patch (15/16)
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * For each OPAL command the first step in steps starts some
> > > > > sort of
> > > > > + * session. If an error occurred in the initial discovery0 or
> > > > > if an
> > > > > + * error occurred in the first step (and thus stopping the loop
> > > > > with
> > > > > + * state == 1) then there was an error before or during the
> > > > > attempt to
> > > > > + * start a session. Therefore we shouldn't attempt to terminate
> > > > > a
> > > > > + * session, as one has not yet been created.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (error && state > 1)
> > > > > + end_opal_session_error(dev);
> > > > >
> > > > > return error;
> > > >
> > > > The flow here is a little too condensed for my taste. Why not the
> > > > plain obvoious, if a little longer:
> > > >
> > > > error = error = opal_discovery0_step(dev);
> > > > if (error)
> > > > return error;
> > > >
> > > > for (state = 0; state < n_steps; state++) {
> > > > error = execute_step(dev, &steps[state], state);
> > > > if (error)
> > > > goto out_error;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > out_error:
> > > > if (state > 1)
> > > > end_opal_session_error(dev);
> > > > return error;
> > >
> > > No problem, I can use this version. But I think there is a minor issue -
> > > the same one I hit in my original change, just from the other direction:
> > >
> > > If the loop succeds for the 0-th element of steps, and then fails for the
> > > 1st element, then state equals 1 yet the session has been started, so we
> > > should close it.
> > >
> > > I think the condition in out_error should be if (state > 0).
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > David
> >
> > Looks good with Christoph's suggestion (for 14/16) and your state check fix
> >
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derr...@intel.com>
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> What suggestion by Christoph you have in mind? I don't see any for 14/16.
> Currently, in my git repo, for this patch, I applied Christoph suggestion
> for this (15/16) patch + the "state > 0" fix. Is this what you mean?
>
> Best regards,
> David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
