[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150515071415.GC24293@opentech.at>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 09:14:15 +0200
From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To: Prasad Gondi <pgondi@...are.com>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@...el.com>,
"fcoe-devel@...n-fcoe.org" <fcoe-devel@...n-fcoe.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...n.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Open-FCoE] [PATCH] scsi: fix Wunused-but-set-variable
buildwarning
On Thu, 14 May 2015, Prasad Gondi wrote:
> It seems like rpriv is used to set the fsp->tgt_flags originally
>
> > fsp->tgt_flags = rpriv->flags
>
> And fsp->tgt_flags are used in "fc_fcp_cmd_send" like this
>
> setup_timer(&fsp->timer, fc_fcp_timeout, (unsigned long)fsp);
> if (rpriv->flags & FC_RP_FLAGS_REC_SUPPORTED)
> fc_fcp_timer_set(fsp, get_fsp_rec_tov(fsp));
>
> Main purpose of this flags used is to set the correct TimeOut Value for fc_fcp_timer.
>
> So is the removal of the "fsp->tgt_flags = rpriv->flags" in fc_queuecommand() is intentional? Or by mistake?
>
thats something I can't say - but the commit message indicated that the
removal of tgt_flags was intentional.
> Once we clear that out we can see whether this change make sense?
>
yup - many thanks !
hofrat
--
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