[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a7e4fe12-64f2-3164-d675-26310ac07c9e@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 17:22:55 +0000
From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
CC: "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/21] block: add and use init tagset helper
On 10/5/22 09:54, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 10/5/22 02:47, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 07:11, Damien Le Moal
>> <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/5/22 12:22, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>>>> +void blk_mq_init_tag_set(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
>>>> + const struct blk_mq_ops *ops, unsigned int nr_hw_queues,
>>>> + unsigned int queue_depth, unsigned int cmd_size, int
>>>> numa_node,
>>>> + unsigned int timeout, unsigned int flags, void
>>>> *driver_data)
>>>
>>> That is an awful lot of arguments... I would be tempted to say pack all
>>> these into a struct but then that would kind of negate this patchset
>>> goal.
>>> Using a function with that many arguments will be error prone, and
>>> hard to
>>> review... Not a fan.
>>
>> I completely agree.
>>
>> But there is also another problem going down this route. If/when we
>> realize that there is another parameter needed in the blk_mq_tag_set.
>> Today that's quite easy to add (assuming the parameter can be
>> optional), without changing the blk_mq_init_tag_set() interface.
>
> Hi Chaitanya,
>
> Please consider to drop the entire patch series. In addition to the
> disadvantages mentioned above I'd like to mention the following
> disadvantages:
> * Replacing named member assignments with positional arguments in a
> function call makes code harder to read and harder to verify.
> * This patch series makes tree-wide changes without improving the code
> in a substantial way.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>
Thanks for the feedback, will drop it.
-ck
Powered by blists - more mailing lists