From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi host cleanup 3/3 (driver changes) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:59:12 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200210101659.g9AGxCA02928@localhost.localdomain> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: (from root@localhost) by pogo.mtv1.steeleye.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07215 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:59:14 -0700 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn-233.mtv1.steeleye.com [172.16.1.233]) by pogo.mtv1.steeleye.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07126 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:59:12 -0700 Received: from mulgrave (jejb@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/linuxconf) with ESMTP id g9AGxCA02928 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:59:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Anderson of "Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:46:33 PDT." <20021010164633.GA1348@beaverton.ibm.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org I (finally) got around to looking at the patches. There were only a few minor quibbles, really boiling down to the fact that you export some functions beginning shost_ instead of scsi_ (shost_tp_for_each_host, shost_chk_and_release). I can't see any reason why this might cause a naming clash, but I think it is safer to stick to exports beginning with scsi_. Also, why do we now have some functions beginning scsi_host and some beginning scsi_shost? Could we just use one or the other (I'd vote for scsi_host, since it's shorter). James