Hi Matthew,
Hannes Reinecke wrote:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 02:50:30PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
@@ -1131,14 +1137,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__scsi_device_lookup_by_target);
struct scsi_device *scsi_device_lookup_by_target(struct scsi_target
*starget,
uint lun)
{
- struct scsi_device *sdev;
+ struct scsi_device *sdev = NULL;
struct Scsi_Host *shost = dev_to_shost(starget->dev.parent);
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
- sdev = __scsi_device_lookup_by_target(starget, lun);
+ restart:
+ sdev = __scsi_device_lookup_by_target(starget, sdev, lun);
if (sdev && scsi_device_get(sdev))
- sdev = NULL;
+ goto restart;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
return sdev;
Backwards jumps are generally disapproved of. How about:
spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
for (;;) {
sdev = __scsi_device_lookup_by_target(starget, sdev, lun);
if (!sdev || !scsi_device_get(sdev))
break;
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
I must say I don't really like the for(;;) construct.
And it's really confusing as we want to find an sdev, so breaking
if it's _not_ found is ... weird.
What about
do {
sdev = __scsi_device_lookup_by_target(starget, sdev, lun);
} while (sdev && scsi_device_get(sdev));
?
Should be identical and easier to read ...
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
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
