From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill of ->command Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:22:47 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030609192247.B2006@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20030609162056.GA1857@lst.de> <20030609094130.A14870@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030609165157.GA2079@lst.de> <20030609191552.A2006@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1055182761.1726.84.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:13839 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263163AbTFISJN (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:09:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1055182761.1726.84.camel@mulgrave>; from James.Bottomley@steeleye.com on Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:19:20PM -0500 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Patrick Mansfield , SCSI Mailing List On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:19:20PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 13:15, Russell King wrote: > > 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. > > Calling done from queuecommand() is perfectly legal, as long as you > return 0 from queuecommand. In which case I don't see why we can't convert this driver to use just queuecommand(). -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html