From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [PATCH] 4/7 cleanup/consolidate code in scsi_request_fn Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:07:25 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3E81DE4D.7060407@splentec.com> References: <20030324175337.A14957@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030324175422.A14996@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030324180227.A15047@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030324180247.B15047@beaverton.ibm.com> <20030324180304.C15047@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E80CB02.8010909@splentec.com> <20030325165822.A1383@beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick Mansfield Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Patrick Mansfield wrote: > I don't care much one way or the other, but I don't like ok2queue. > > I was using sdev to distinguish the name from struct dev and functions > related to struct dev. We already have the confusing names scsi_device_get > and scsi_get_device - one for a "get" of a scsi_device one to get a > struct dev given a scsi_host. And then the shost naming matches sdev. > > Anyway, the following are fine with me: > scsi_dev_ready, scsi_host_ready > scsi_sdev_ready, scsi_shost_ready > The problem here is _again_ the implicitness of your definitions. ``ready'' is not better than ``check''. Why? result = X_ready(arg) --> whatever result, the question is ``ready (or not) _for__what_????'' -- Luben