From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Mansfield Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] scsi-misc-2.5 software enqueue when can_queue reached Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:41:19 -0800 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030303154119.A31562@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20030228111924.A32018@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E627037.9060809@splentec.com> <20030303125254.A30662@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E63D9FB.1010602@splentec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E63D9FB.1010602@splentec.com>; from luben@splentec.com on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:40:59PM -0500 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Luben - On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:40:59PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: > Ah, yes, sadly I see the [political] compromize -- I promize to > straighten this out with the source right after I finish this email. > In due time you're allowed free thinking. :-) Well they are just names, the important issue is that we understand how the code uses them. > But isn't it a queue? Furhermore isn't it a queue of _deferred_ > *by SCSI Core* commands, because the host command limit were hit? > > Then wouldn't it *make sense* to call it ``deferred_q'' or > ``deferred_cmd_q''? > > Doesn't this just *make sense*? It is a struct list_head, you can call it a queue but it is coded as a list_head. Adding _q or _queue does not change anything, or make the code easier to understand. There is not much difference between "pending" and "deferred" (damn I actually had to go look those up in a dictionary), though SAM-3 references pending, I don't see any SAM references to deferred. The name can always be modified via future patches. -- Patrick Mansfield