On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 02:04 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:19:49PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > I should point out that the majority of values mentioned here (other > > than the two INQUIRY strings) are already present in struct > > se_dev_attrib and which appear as configfs attributes under > > under /sys/kernel/config/target/core/$HBA/$DEV/attrib/. This means that > > the struct se_subsystem_api calls only really used by during init > > target_core_device.c:se_dev_set_default_attribs() and > > DEV_ATTRIB(dev)->block_size, etc are used in TCM Core code. > > > > I am happy to include the two INQUIRY strings needed for emulation into > > struct se_subsystem_api directly, but I would still prefer to keep the > > function pointers for extracting values from subsystem specific code for > > the initial device attribute setup. > > What's the point? It's a lot of boilerplate code that does nothing > but obsfucating what's actually going on there. > So you would rather have struct se_device attributes set in TCM subsystem specific ->create_virtdevice() code directly after transport_add_device_to_core_hba() -> se_dev_set_default_attribs(), right..? Performing the assignment of these attribute values from the same local functions and dropping the extra struct se_subsystem_api callers would be fine with me, but I honestly don't see how these handful of subsystem API callers with obvious names adds obsfucation while TCM code is using struct se_device->$ATTR_NAME to enforce device limits in I/O path code...? Thanks for your comments.. ;) --nab -- 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
