On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 20:01 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:50PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > So I was going to just merge this because having a single register > > template function for fabric drivers does make alot of sense, but it > > currently conflicts with the T10-PI fabric bits in for-next. Sigh.. > > > > Looking further, I really don't like how the target_fabric_copy_attrs() > > stuff works in target_register_template(). Just punting to direct use > > struct configfs_attributes pointers in target_core_fabric_ops is a hack. > > > > I'd much rather see target_fabric_setup_cits() do this proper setup, > > instead of unnecessarily duplicating the target_core_fabric_configfs.c > > list of defined config_item_types in two new locations. > > Does this version look better? It adds a new TF_CIT_SETUP_DRV macro, > so that the core configfs code can declare attributes as either core > only or for drivers. That way we also avoid the case where the core > code defines an attribute and a fabric driver accidentally overrides it. > > It's also been rebased to latest target/for-next. Thanks HCH. Applied to target-pending/for-next code. --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
