From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] target/qla2xxx: Define NPIV ops in terms of normal ops Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 23:30:08 -0700 Message-ID: <20130821063008.GD25506@infradead.org> References: <1377046807-15860-1-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <1377046807-15860-5-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:42540 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752253Ab3HUGaI (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:30:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1377046807-15860-5-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Grover Cc: target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:00:06PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: > Instead of defining a second target_core_fabric_ops struct, use the > same one as normal (tcm_qla2xxx_ops) and then fixup the changed methods. > > This should make it a little easier to pick out the npiv differences, and > also save a little space. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Grover Can't say I'm a huge fan of either the old or new way, I'd rather have the methods contain both the NPIV and non-NPIV code inline. If that's what you're preparing for I'm supportive of this, otherwise I don't really care too much about it. Looks correct at least..