On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 17:58 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:31 PM Vishal Verma < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > The ndctl inject-smart command was neglecting to check the > > 'firmware_status' field that is set by the platform firmware to > > indicate > > failure. Use the new ndctl_cmd_submit_xlat facility to include the > > firmware_status check as part of the command submission. > > > > Reported-by: Ami Pathak <[email protected]> > > Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <[email protected]> > > [..] > > diff --git a/ndctl/util/json-smart.c b/ndctl/util/json-smart.c > > index 3c1b917..92a9313 100644 > > --- a/ndctl/util/json-smart.c > > +++ b/ndctl/util/json-smart.c > > @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ static void smart_threshold_to_json(struct > > ndctl_dimm *dimm, > > if (!cmd) > > return; > > > > - rc = ndctl_cmd_submit(cmd); > > - if (rc || ndctl_cmd_get_firmware_status(cmd)) > > + rc = ndctl_cmd_submit_xlat(cmd); > > + if ((rc < 0) || ndctl_cmd_get_firmware_status(cmd)) > > goto out; > > Can't we just do: > > rc = ndctl_cmd_submit_xlat(cmd); > if (rc < 0) > goto out; > > ...and drop the open coded ndctl_cmd_get_firmware_status()? > > In general it seems like most users of > ndctl_cmd_get_firmware_status() > would be happy with ndctl_cmd_submit_xlat() instead.
Yes good catch - I'll see where else we can make this change and respin. The users of ndctl_cmd_get_firmware_status that use ACPI DSMs probably still stay since _xlat, at least for now, only handles commands that are defined in dimm_ops. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
