On Thu, Apr 07 2005, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 14:22 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Do we really need the sdev_lock pointer? There's just a single place > > where we're using it and the code would be much more clear if it had just > > one name. > > Humour me for a while. I don't believe we have any way the lock can be > used after calling queue free, but nulling the sdev_lock pointer will > surely catch them. If nothing turns up after a few kernel revisions, > feel free to kill it. I think Christophs point is that why add sdev_lock as a pointer, instead of just killing it? It's only used in one location, so it's not really that confusing (and a comment could fix that). -- Jens Axboe - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
