From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willem Riede Subject: Re: osst changes required to move forward to block request Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:27:44 -0500 Message-ID: <1140380864l.23688l.6l@athena.riede.org> References: <20060206131944.GA1769@lst.de> <1139274141l.7464l.1l@athena.riede.org> <20060207091254.GA11691@infradead.org> <1139687216l.24984l.0l@athena.riede.org> <20060214192447.GA20864@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.192.81]:4789 "EHLO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751021AbWBSU16 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:27:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060214192447.GA20864@lst.de> (from hch@lst.de on Tue Feb 14 14:24:47 2006) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, Andrew Morton On 02/14/2006 02:24:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Looks good. I didn't think about keeping the reuse and dealing with it > in osst_do_scsi, but this obviously works. Please tell if you're > confident enough with it so we can put it in the for-2.6.17 tree. > > Long-term we should probably get rid of the request reuse anyway, > because it's not nessecary anymore and would make the code more > readable. I agree that would make the code easier to understand, but it will be a significant impact on the logic of the driver, whereas the current patch is relatively low impact. Which is exactly the reason why, yes, I do feel the change can at least be put in the -mm series and then migrate if we don't get any problem reports. Thanks, Willem Riede.