At Wed, 02 May 2012 13:34:56 +0800,
Liu Yuan wrote:
>
> On 05/02/2012 12:38 PM, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
>
> > It will check the function is correctly called with new changes in
> > future. Probably assert() would be better.
>
>
> I don't think check
>
> - if (req->rq.flags & SD_FLAG_CMD_RECOVERY) {
> - if (req->rq.opcode != SD_OP_READ_OBJ)
> - eprintf("bug\n");
>
> makes any sense. There is only one place use SD_FLAG_CMD_RECOVERY flag
> and except recovery logic, we would never have a chance to set this flag
> with conflict opcode.
What is really missing looks like the documentation about what
SD_FLAG_CMD_RECOVERY is and how it is used. I'm okay for removing the
code.
Thanks,
Kazutaka
|
|