Re: [RFC PATCH] SCSI host lock push-down

[Jeff Garzik]

On 11/06/2010 05:31 AM, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > An alternate arrangement, not presented by this patch, might
> > be preferred:  in order to make it clear that queuecommand
> > locking has changed, one could s/queuecommand/queuecommand_nl/ in
> > Scsi_Host_Template, in order to guarantee that drivers are either
> > (a) upgraded or (b) broken at compile time.  Compile-time detection of
> > new locking may be desirable, and I'll volunteer to change my patch to
> > do that, if community members prefer that route instead of below.
>
> I followed only a fraction of the related discussion.  Thus I wonder why a
> renaming of scsi_host_template.queuecommand was not part of these attempts
> from the very outset.
>
> Given the choice between compile-time breakage of unconverted drivers and
> silent invalidation of potential locking assumptions at runtime, the
> preferable way forward is quite clear IMO.

I am leaning towards a rename, but wanted to see what others thought.


> (Since no coexistence period of .queuecommand and .queuecommand_nl or
> .unlocked_queuecommand is planned, how about you rename it to .queue_command?
> Follows Linux naming conventions more closely.)

To me, that name lacks a clear "locking changed" signal, for a random 
engineer who simply stumbles upon the queuecommand -> queue_command 
rename change one day.

	Jeff


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/