[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101014000421.GB15583@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:04:21 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@...erlog.com>,
Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] tcm: Unify INQUIRY subsystem plugin handling
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:19:49PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> I should point out that the majority of values mentioned here (other
> than the two INQUIRY strings) are already present in struct
> se_dev_attrib and which appear as configfs attributes under
> under /sys/kernel/config/target/core/$HBA/$DEV/attrib/. This means that
> the struct se_subsystem_api calls only really used by during init
> target_core_device.c:se_dev_set_default_attribs() and
> DEV_ATTRIB(dev)->block_size, etc are used in TCM Core code.
>
> I am happy to include the two INQUIRY strings needed for emulation into
> struct se_subsystem_api directly, but I would still prefer to keep the
> function pointers for extracting values from subsystem specific code for
> the initial device attribute setup.
What's the point? It's a lot of boilerplate code that does nothing
but obsfucating what's actually going on there.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists