From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] add data buffer accessors Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:57:08 +0300 > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > +#define scsi_for_each_sg(cmd, sg, nseg, __i) \ > > + for (__i = 0, sg = scsi_sglist(cmd); __i < (nseg); __i++, (sg)++) > > + > > This feels like a layering violation, why not use for_each_sg()? > > +#define scsi_for_each_sg(cmd, sg, nseg, __i) \ > for_each_sg(scsi_sglist(cmd), (sg), (nseg), (__i)) \ As I said before, when for_each_sg is ready, we'll convert scsi_for_each_sg to use for_each_sg. > That said, I'm not sure that scsi_for_each_sg() is worth abstracting > since the caller can just as well do for_each_sg() directly > as sketched above... I'm not sure why you think it's a layering violation. With scsi_for_each_sg(), many drivers don't need scsi_sglist(). - To unsubscribe from this list: 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
