Re: [PATCH] ibmvscsi driver - next version

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:41:36PM -0600, Dave Boutcher wrote:
> > 	any reason you hid all headers in ibmvscsi.h?  normally we include
> > 	them in the source files directly.
> 
> Philosophy question....I usually assume that a header file should in turn 
> include anything it needs...so ibmvscsi.h includes all the scsi header 
> files it uses...bad philosophy?

If you actually need them you need to include them.  But in ibmvscsi.h
I only see pointers to the scsi datastructures - for those a simple
forward-declaration is enough.


> > 	This can't ever happen.  You will only get called for commands
> > 	that you have accepted in queuecommand and not called the completion
> > 	routine for.
> 
> The above code was in the abort routine....I would personally prefer to 
> leave the check in there from pure paranoia.  If we are into aborts, bad 
> things are happening, and I don't really care about code path in 
> abort...perhaps I should add a "this should never happen" comment? :-)  I 
> could make it a BUG()...I'm not a huge fan of BUG() in drivers...

Just remove it.  If you don't trust the midlayer it's hard to write
a scsi driver..

> The INIT_WORK call needs to be done before we get back to the subdriver in 
> case the first message gets turned around really fast.  Having this stub 
> seemed the cleanest way to handle that generically.

Why can't you simply do it in ibmvscsi_init_crq_queue for example?