From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] IB/srp: simplify state tracking Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:46:57 +0100 Message-ID: <50B33A91.3060103@acm.org> References: <6f9ad200f981a2fe49319e7437c842f03063a4f1.1353903448.git.dillowda@ornl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from georges.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.137.68]:49270 "EHLO georges.telenet-ops.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754104Ab2KZJrA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:47:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <6f9ad200f981a2fe49319e7437c842f03063a4f1.1353903448.git.dillowda@ornl.gov> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: David Dillow Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, roland@purestorage.com On 11/26/12 05:44, David Dillow wrote: > The state of the target has several conditions that overlap, making it > easier to model as a bit-field of exceptional conditions rather than an > enum of all possible states. > > Bart Van Assche did the hard work of identifying the states that can be > removed, and did a first patch that consolidated the state space. [ ... ] Hi Dave, Could you please explain why you would prefer to use test_bit () / test_and_set_bit() and clear_bit() for managing the SRP target state ? As far as I can see the target state is not changed in any code path where it matters how fast the state is changed. Maybe I'm missing something ? Thanks, Bart.