On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 13:34 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 02:05:57AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 10:26 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:11:04AM +0000, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > > + clear_bit(1, &orig->pr_reg); > > > > > > Can you call it ->flags and give the bit a meaningful name? > > > > The bit is signaling if se_dev_entry has a PR registration active. > > > > I don't see how ->flags is a more meaningful name without other bits > > defined. > > It's pretty normal style: define a flags variable for any sort of > bitops state that might show up, and then give the actual bits a meaningful > name. There's almost no users of using a magic numberic value with > atomic bitops. > > Besides being the usual and thus easier to read style it's also good > future proofing.
Fair enough. Changing this to ->deve_flags > > > > It would be good to just sort out the registered and co variables > > > here before the RCU changes, as in: > > > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/scsi.git/commitdiff/6372d9f62c83acb30d051387c40deb4dbdcaa376 > > > > Why not just keep this patch squashed into the relevant commit in the > > context of the larger RCU conversion..? > > Because the logic in and aroudn core_scsi3_pr_seq_non_holder right > now is rather confusing. So before doing changes to it it's better > to clean it up first, document that cleanup in a standalon patch > and then apply the logic change on top. > -- I'll keep it in a standalone patch, but having it precede the RCU changes when it doesn't actually involve RCU is confusing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
