On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 00:25 -0700, Andy Yan wrote: > For considering the possibility of future use, I did not remove the parameter; I will check this and remove it with next patch if it is OK. Well, there are two reasons for removing it. The first is that it's unused, but the second is that conditional locking isn't very nice programming style, since it makes control flow far harder to follow rationally when just reading the code. The preferred style is to define a function that does the unlocked operation, usually with double underscores and then have a locked version that takes the lock, calls the double underscore unlocked version and releases the lock again. In your case, if you find a use for the unlocked version, you can split it in the patch that's using it. Looking at the routine, the only thing you call outside the lock is mvs_find_dev_mvi(). The thing that strikes me here is that this is a bit inefficient: why not store mvi in struct mvs_device? Then you can get it as a simple pointer operation instead of having to search. James -- 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
