Re: [PATCH] 4/7 cleanup/consolidate code in scsi_request_fn

Luben Tuikov
2003-03-26T17:07:25Z

Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> I don't care much one way or the other, but I don't like ok2queue.
>
> I was using sdev to distinguish the name from struct dev and functions
> related to struct dev. We already have the confusing names scsi_device_get
> and scsi_get_device - one for a "get" of a scsi_device one to get a
> struct dev given a scsi_host. And then the shost naming matches sdev.
>
> Anyway, the following are fine with me:
> scsi_dev_ready, scsi_host_ready
> scsi_sdev_ready, scsi_shost_ready
>

The problem here is _again_ the implicitness of your definitions.
``ready'' is not better than ``check''. Why?

result = X_ready(arg) --> whatever result, the question is
``ready (or not) _for__what_????''

--
Luben