From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Mansfield Subject: Re: [PATCH] 4/7 cleanup/consolidate code in scsi_request_fn Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:13:47 -0800 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030326091346.A2940@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20030324175337.A14957@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030324175422.A14996@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030324180227.A15047@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030324180247.B15047@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030324180304.C15047@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E80CB02.8010909@splentec.com> <20030325165822.A1383@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E81DE4D.7060407@splentec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E81DE4D.7060407@splentec.com>; from luben@splentec.com on Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:07:25PM -0500 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:07:25PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: > Patrick Mansfield wrote: > > I don't care much one way or the other, but I don't like ok2queue. > > 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_????'' OK - scsi_sdev_queue_ready scsi_shost_queue_ready or scsi_dev_queue_ready scsi_host_queue_ready -- Patrick Mansfield