| Message ID | 20220420041053.7927-3-kch@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | virtio-blk: small cleanup | expand |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 09:10:51PM -0700, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > Don't split sector assignment line for REQ_OP_READ and REQ_OP_WRITE in > the virtblk_setup_cmd() which fits in one line perfectly. > > Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) There is a cost to patches: humans spend time reviewing them, CI systems consume energy running tests, downstream maintainers deal with backports, and git-blame(1) becomes harder to use when code changes. What constitutes code churn is subjective. For me personally I prefer it when patches have a clear benefit that outweighs the costs. Nevertheless: Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
On 4/20/22 08:04, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 09:10:51PM -0700, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: >> Don't split sector assignment line for REQ_OP_READ and REQ_OP_WRITE in >> the virtblk_setup_cmd() which fits in one line perfectly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com> >> --- >> drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 6 ++---- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > There is a cost to patches: humans spend time reviewing them, CI systems > consume energy running tests, downstream maintainers deal with > backports, and git-blame(1) becomes harder to use when code changes. > > What constitutes code churn is subjective. For me personally I prefer it > when patches have a clear benefit that outweighs the costs. > Nevertheless: > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> > maybe we can just drop it then, for naked eye it looked a bit odd to add a new line.. -ck
diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c index b77711e73422..d038800474c2 100644 --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c @@ -210,13 +210,11 @@ static blk_status_t virtblk_setup_cmd(struct virtio_device *vdev, switch (req_op(req)) { case REQ_OP_READ: type = VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN; - vbr->out_hdr.sector = cpu_to_virtio64(vdev, - blk_rq_pos(req)); + vbr->out_hdr.sector = cpu_to_virtio64(vdev, blk_rq_pos(req)); break; case REQ_OP_WRITE: type = VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT; - vbr->out_hdr.sector = cpu_to_virtio64(vdev, - blk_rq_pos(req)); + vbr->out_hdr.sector = cpu_to_virtio64(vdev, blk_rq_pos(req)); break; case REQ_OP_FLUSH: type = VIRTIO_BLK_T_FLUSH;
Don't split sector assignment line for REQ_OP_READ and REQ_OP_WRITE in the virtblk_setup_cmd() which fits in one line perfectly. Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com> --- drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)