FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> +struct iscsi_connection {
>> + struct iscsi_conn_hdr h;
>
> Why you need to invent struct iscsi_conn_hdr? I meant that why we
> can't pass a pointer to struct iscsi_connection to functions instead
> of one to struct iscsi_conn_hdr? If it's because iser needs only
> iscsi_conn_hdr and doesn't need iscsi_connection (just for small
> memory footprint), then please don't do this for now.
First i fought with the text functions that access
iscsi_conn->rx_buffer, iscsi_conn->tx_buffer etc.
So i wanted the compiler to help me rule out all such calls.
Then i wanted to make a step towards a common iscsi framework,
by avoiding extension of iscsi_conn(tcp) by iser, and giving iser and
iscsi/tcp an "equal" status, where they both extend a shared minimal
struct.
I can get the original structure back (with some possible smaller
alterations) and make iser extend it.
This should be quite a mechanical task now.
Do you think this will make reading the patches easier by shrinking
the diff? Other reasons?
Anyway, if it helps, i can prepare a new patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
