From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: The future of host_scribble Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:46:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20050421074641.GA17184@infradead.org> References: <20050421002333.GA8556@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:2474 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261489AbVDUHqr (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:46:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050421002333.GA8556@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:23:33AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > In scsi_cmnd there's an element called host_scribble. The name and the > comment by it were sufficiently confusing that I didn't realise that this > field is basically for the host's private data. Any objections to something > like this, assuming I also submit a patch that converts all the drivers? Actually the situation about private data in scsi_cmnd is worse, there's another private data, that's the scsi_pointer structure embedded as SCp member. If we're going to fix up naming we should find a way to fixup both an have a sensible name for both embedded and out of struct private data. I somehow doubt it's going to happen before we drop support for gcc 2.95 and thus can use anonymous unions :)