From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [patch 02/15] libata: Add host lock to struct ata_port Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:17:31 -0500 Message-ID: <43EAEC8B.2060003@pobox.com> References: <200602061542.k16FgROF014749@d01av03.pok.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:55961 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422856AbWBIHRe (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 02:17:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200602061542.k16FgROF014749@d01av03.pok.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: brking@us.ibm.com Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org brking@us.ibm.com wrote: > Prepare for changes required to support SATA devices > attached to SAS HBAs. For these devices we don't want to > use host_set at all, since libata will not be the owner > of struct scsi_host. > > Signed-off-by: Brian King Please move this as far back in the patch series as possible. The simple stuff -- moving code into static functions for later use, for example -- should come first. While you're ginning up the resend, I'll be pondering this and the latter portion of your patch series. This seems like a sane way to go, but I want to think a bit more on the overall direction. Jeff