From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Duncan Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] st: get rid of scsi_tapes array Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:28:12 -0700 Message-ID: <4FB1950C.9000304@suse.com> References: <4FB476F3.5010404@suse.com> <1337240130.2926.4.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1337240130.2926.4.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kai.makisara@kolumbus.fi, jeffm@suse.com List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Ok, understood. On 05/17/2012 12:35 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 20:56 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote: >> st currently allocates an array to store pointers to all of the >> scsi_tape objects. It's used to discover available indexes to use as the >> base for the minor number selection and later to look up scsi_tape >> devices for character devices. >> >> We switch to using an IDR for minor selection and a pointer from >> st_modedef back to scsi_tape for the lookups. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney >> Reviewed-by: Lee Duncan > > This can't be Reviewed-by either. The signoff chain has to follow the > transmission path of the patch. If you send me Jeff's patches, you have > to add a signoff because you're a direct part of the transmission path. > If Jeff sends me them, then he can give you Reviewed-by because you're > not then in the direct transmission path. (Signoff is supposed to imply > reviewed by anyway, so the tagging is correct in either case). > > James > > > -- Lee Duncan