Hi John, >> So in this case I think that accessor functions are actually better >> because they allow us to print a big fat warning when you twiddle >> something you shouldn't post-initialization. So that's something I think >> we could--and should--improve. >> > Sure, this is an alternative, but I would rather make it obvious when > these parameters should be set so that this would not be required. I would like to have a mechanism in place that warns if you twiddle things that break assumptions made at host registration time. That's not a scenario the old registration interface was designed to handle. I am not sure I agree with your assertion that setting these masks in the struct prior to scsi_add_host() makes this ordering requirement much more obvious. It is not like you are passing in a list of parameters and then receiving a separately instantiated immutable scsi_host object. You are performing an operation on something you already have and own. That's why I commented that the current intersection between compile-time static host template, dynamically discovered pre-registration scsi_host parameters, and the registered runtime scsi_host struct is somewhat messy. Btw. I have no attachment to the prot wrappers whatsoever. The reason they exist is that the SCSI integrity support was optional. And therefore we had stub functions so things could be compiled without any of the integrity fields being present in the various SCSI structs. So I don't have any problem killing the wrappers except they may actually be handy for regressions like this one where you could #error if the driver writer violates the ordering requirement. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
