On 2014-10-03 07:01, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 10/02/14 18:55, Jens Axboe wrote:
Sure, that's fine as well, but the function needs a more descriptive
name. I try to think of it like I have never looked at the code and need
to write a driver, it's a lot easier if the functions are named
appropriately. Seeing blk_mq_rq_tag() and even with reading the function
comment, I'm really none the wiser and would assume I need to use this
function to get the tag.
So we can do the single function, but lets call it
blk_mq_unique_rq_tag(). That's special enough that people will know this
is something that doesn't just return the request tag. Then add an extra
sentence to the comment you already have on when this is needed.
And lets roll those bitshift values and masks into a define or enum so
it's collected in one place.
How about the patch below ? In that patch all comments should have been
addressed that Christoph and you have formulated so far.
Looks good to me now. Get rid of the extra TAG in the
BLK_MQ_UNIQUE_TAG_TAG_BITS/MASK naming though, then you can add my
acked-by if Christoph wants to take this through the scsi tree.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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
