On 03/05/15 15:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > In general this looks fine, but: > > - why do you need a separate scsi_lun.h? > - I'd really prefer to only have the protocol defintion here, > not prototypes for helpers like scsi_device_type, int_to_scsilun > and scsilun_to_int. The target code should not depend on the > initiator for helpers. In the long run we should either duplicate > them, or have a library used by the initiator and target. Hello Christoph, Thanks for the review. Whether scsi_lun.h is separate or not is not important to me. The only reason I had proposed to create a separate header file for struct scsi_lun is because some other header files only need the definition of that structure and not any other definition that is present in the proposed scsi_proto.h header file. Creating a library of functions that are shared by initiator and target makes sense to me. Not only the LUN translation functions but also functions like scsi_command_size() are useful for both SCSI initiator and SCSI target code. If anyone has a suggestion for a good name for such a library that would be welcome. Unfortunately there is already a source file with the name scsi_lib.c in the kernel tree so using the name scsi_lib.h might be confusing. Bart. -- 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
