From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/4] scsi: remove MSG_*_TAG defines Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 01:03:15 -0800 Message-ID: <20141201090315.GA4042@infradead.org> References: <1416839781-26988-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20141124150725.GA23165@infradead.org> <54784762.8020304@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:48920 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752690AbaLAJDQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 04:03:16 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54784762.8020304@acm.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Doug Ledford On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:58:58AM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > if (disable_syn_offset_one_fix) { > >- scsiq->q2.tag_code &= ~MSG_SIMPLE_TAG; > >+ scsiq->q2.tag_code &= ~SIMPLE_QUEUE_TAG; > > scsiq->q2.tag_code |= (ASC_TAG_FLAG_DISABLE_ASYN_USE_SYN_FIX | > > ASC_TAG_FLAG_DISABLE_DISCONNECT); > > } else { > > One of the statements in advansys.c (tag_code &= 0xDC) makes assumptions > about the numeric value of MSG_SIMPLE_TAG. This makes me wonder whether it > is safe to change MSG_SIMPLE_TAG into another value ? MSG_SIMPLE_TAG and SIMPLE_QUEUE_TAG are two different symbolic names for the 0x20 value assigned to the SCSI-2 protocol "SIMPLE QUEUE TAG" message. Having both is confusing, so I decided to only keep the one that is named closer to the spec, and in the same namespace as the symbolic names we use for other SCSI-2 messages.