James Smart wrote:
I actually started the patch with this in mind - making a common layer.
I was able to commonize: xx_bsg_destroy_job(), xx_bsg_jobdone(),
xx_softirq_done(), a helper for the timeout function (chkjobdone()),
xx_bsg_map_buffer(), xx_req_to_bsgjob(), and xx_bsg_goose_queue().
However, what I was finding was I was jumping through hoops with the
data structures (whose header where, structures within structures,
nested private areas, etc). Additionally, I kept finding chunks of the
code flow, which had parallels to the items in the common routines, that
had to be left within the transport (e.g. rx path in transport, tx in
common; or vice versa) - e.g. if I can't encapsulate both sides of the
code flow within the common code I lose many of the advantages - I ended
up abandoning it under the guise of "complexity==bad"
I can post some of the work to see if you have the same conclusion. Yes,
I don't like the replication either.
Do not worry about it. I am looking at it in more depth now.
--
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
