From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Grover Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] target/qla2xxx: Define NPIV ops in terms of normal ops Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:02:32 -0700 Message-ID: <5214E498.6020504@redhat.com> References: <1377046807-15860-1-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <1377046807-15860-5-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <20130821063008.GD25506@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130821063008.GD25506@infradead.org> Sender: target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 08/20/2013 11:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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.. It reduces the binary size and makes it easier to spot the differences between the two cases, which was the goal. So I think it's a small improvement but if others disagree then I'm fine with the code as-is. Regards -- Andy