On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:37:33 -0400 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/hosts.c b/drivers/scsi/hosts.c > > index adc9559..694015d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/hosts.c > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/hosts.c > > @@ -342,6 +342,10 @@ struct Scsi_Host *scsi_host_alloc(struct > > scsi_host_template *sht, int privsize) > > shost->unchecked_isa_dma = sht->unchecked_isa_dma; > > shost->use_clustering = sht->use_clustering; > > shost->ordered_tag = sht->ordered_tag; > > + > > + if (!sht->supported_mode) > > + sht->supported_mode = MODE_INITIATOR; > > + > > shost->active_mode = sht->supported_mode; > > > I almost hesitate to speak up, after making the original suggestion, but: > > Are there any const-ness worries for scsi_host_template, or plans for > the future? I do not see any other examples of the host template > members getting modified. Yeah, that's why I said it's hacky in the previous discussion. Changing scsi_host_template behind llds is not nice, I think. > Perhaps this value should instead be mirrored in scsi_host, like > many others? supported_mode should be static like 'name'. I'm not sure about having supported_mode in scsi_host. All the scsi_hosts of one driver always use the same supported_mode value unlike active_mode. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
