From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] IB/srp: Add multichannel support Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:24:05 -0600 Message-ID: <542EB185.2040506@kernel.dk> References: <541C27BF.6070609@acm.org> <541C28E0.7010705@acm.org> <541C49EC.6030404@acm.org> <541C4D2F.9060907@acm.org> <541C4DF1.4090604@kernel.dk> <542C270B.5020002@acm.org> <542C31C4.1020702@kernel.dk> <542D8143.3050305@acm.org> <542D8368.8080604@kernel.dk> <542E9E10.8040207@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <542E9E10.8040207@acm.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche , Ming Lei Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , linux-rdma , Christoph Hellwig , Robert Elliott List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org 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