From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill of ->command Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:15:52 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030609191552.A2006@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20030609162056.GA1857@lst.de> <20030609094130.A14870@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030609165157.GA2079@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:6159 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262856AbTFISCQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:02:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030609165157.GA2079@lst.de>; from hch@lst.de on Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 06:51:57PM +0200 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Patrick Mansfield , James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 06:51:57PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > and drivers/scsi/arm/arxescsi.c > > can still set can_queue = 0. Correct? > > Russell, and idea why this one sets can_queue = 0 but implements > ->queuecommand? I would guess its because the author just did a cut and paste followed by minimum editing to make it work. I'd need to look at the code, but I'd imagine we could probably do everything we need to inside ->queuecommand that's currently being done by ->command. My only concern would be calling the done function from within queuecommand. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html