From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Bhanu Prakash Gollapudi" Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 3/4] bnx2fc: cleanup task management IO when it times out. Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 17:36:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4FA86A97.3080802@broadcom.com> References: <4FA85912.2030800@broadcom.com> <4FA85B43.2000909@broadcom.com> <4FA86579.5080603@cs.wisc.edu> <4FA86886.2060301@cs.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mms2.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.18]:2503 "EHLO mms2.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751887Ab2EHAgp (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 20:36:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FA86886.2060301@cs.wisc.edu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Christie Cc: James Bottomley , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On 5/7/2012 5:27 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > On 05/07/2012 07:14 PM, Mike Christie wrote: >> On 05/07/2012 06:31 PM, Bhanu Prakash Gollapudi wrote: >>> On 05/04/2012 08:49 AM, Mike Christie wrote: >>>> On 04/24/2012 05:26 PM, Bhanu Prakash Gollapudi wrote: >>>> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/bnx2fc/bnx2fc_tgt.c >>>> b/drivers/scsi/bnx2fc/bnx2fc_tgt.c >>>> > index d3ee231..082a25c 100644 >>>> > --- a/drivers/scsi/bnx2fc/bnx2fc_tgt.c >>>> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/bnx2fc/bnx2fc_tgt.c >>>> > @@ -185,6 +185,16 @@ void bnx2fc_flush_active_ios(struct bnx2fc_rport >>>> *tgt) >>>> > BUG_ON(rc); >>>> > } >>>> > >>>> > + list_for_each_safe(list, tmp,&tgt->active_tm_queue) { >>>> > + i++; >>>> > + io_req = (struct bnx2fc_cmd *)list; >>>> >>>> Why didn't you use list_for_each_entry_safe()? Or, when using >>>> list_for_each_safe, instead of the cast are we supposed to be using >>>> list_entry()? >>> >>> Mike, the list is the first field in the structure, so the cast here is >>> right. >>> >> >> I am saying that normally if there is a function that does the same >> thing we are supposed to use that instead. > > I think though since it works and it used throughout the driver already > it is ok to do. But I think in a patch later it should be changed. > Thanks Mike. In my next opportunity to submit the code, I'll remember to do this.