[dm-devel] [PATCH v3 10/19] nvme: Move NVMe and Block PR types to an array

[Mike Christie]

On 10/27/22 10:18 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:19:36PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>> For Reservation Report support we need to also convert from the NVMe spec
>> PR type back to the block PR definition. This moves us to an array, so in
>> the next patch we can add another helper to do the conversion without
>> having to manage 2 switches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <michael.christie at oracle.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/nvme/host/pr.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>  include/linux/nvme.h   |  9 +++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
>> index df7eb2440c67..5c4611d15d9c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
>> @@ -6,24 +6,28 @@
>>  
>>  #include "nvme.h"
>>  
>> -static char nvme_pr_type(enum pr_type type)
>> +static const struct {
>> +	enum nvme_pr_type	nvme_type;
>> +	enum pr_type		blk_type;
>> +} nvme_pr_types[] = {
>> +	{ NVME_PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE, PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE },
>> +	{ NVME_PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS, PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS },
>> +	{ NVME_PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE_REG_ONLY, PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE_REG_ONLY },
>> +	{ NVME_PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS_REG_ONLY, PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS_REG_ONLY },
>> +	{ NVME_PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE_ALL_REGS, PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE_ALL_REGS },
>> +	{ NVME_PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS_ALL_REGS, PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS_ALL_REGS },
>> +};
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to use the block type as the array index to avoid
> the whole looped lookup?
> 
>   enum nvme_pr_type types[] = {
> 	.PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE = NVME_PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE,
> 	.PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS  = NVME_PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS,
>         ...
>   };

It would be. However,

1. I wasn't sure how future proof we wanted it and I might have
misinterpreted Chaitanya's original review comment. The part of
the comment about handling "every new nvme_type" made me think that
we were worried there would be new types in the future. So I thought
we wanted it to be really generic and be able to handle cases where
the values could be funky like -1 in the future.

2. I also need to go from NVME_PR type to PR type, so we need a
second array. So we can either have 2 arrays or 1 array and 2
loops (the next patch in this set added the second loop).
If we don't care about #1 then I can I see 2 arrays is nicer.