On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 14:37 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 02/26/12 06:32, David Dillow wrote: > > On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 12:43 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >> Separate connection and host state. Only report QP errors while > >> connected. Only invoke ib_send_cm_dreq() from inside > >> srp_disconnect_target() when connected such that invoking > >> srp_disconnect_target() after having received a DREQ does not > >> cause an error message to be printed. > > I'm not sure that splitting connection state from the target state is > > really buying you anything other than more storage and complexity. > > I looked to later patches for a reason this makes sense, but I'm coming > > up short, so maybe I'm just missing it. > > As explained in the description of this patch, this patch makes sense > even without the later changes.
No, the patch description says simply "Separate connection and host state." That tells the reader only what you did and nothing about why it is a good idea. If this was all to avoid printing a message after getting a DREQ, then the commit message should reflect that as the main thrust of the patch, and not "Separate connection and host state" -- that's a mechanical step on your path to the goal. -- Dave Dillow National Center for Computational Science Oak Ridge National Laboratory (865) 241-6602 office -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
