Re: [PATCH][RFC 2/23]: SCST core

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin]

Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:30:37PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> > This patch contains SCST core code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/scst/Kconfig         |  256 ++
>
> Do not use "default n" - this is already the default value.

OK

> >   drivers/scst/Makefile        |   12
> EXTRA_CFLAGS are deprecated in favour of ccflags-y

OK

> >   drivers/scst/scst_cdbprobe.h |  519 +++++
> static const struct scst_sdbops scst_scsi_op_table[] 
>
> This does not belong to a header file.

OK

> >   drivers/scst/scst_lib.c      | 3689 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   drivers/scst/scst_main.c     | 1919 +++++++++++++++++++
> >   drivers/scst/scst_module.c   |   69
> >   drivers/scst/scst_priv.h     |  513 +++++
> >   drivers/scst/scst_targ.c     | 5458 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   8 files changed, 12435 insertions(+)
>
> There was a lot af TRACE_ENTRY() / TRACE_EXIT() noise.
> We should have proper tools for that by now (I hope).

Sorry, I don't see such tools with, for instance, a possibility to be 
compiled out in non-debug builds.

From one side, I can agree, those TRACE_ENTRY()/TRACE_EXIT() statements 
*may* look like a noise (I personally don't notice them), but, from 
other side, in past times they have proved how usable they are. If an 
SCST user has a problem, I simply ask him to make a debug build, then 
enable entry_exit and some other logging levels, then reproduce the 
problem and send me the logs. Then in most cases I can see what's wrong 
and provide a fix without additional actions and questions.

> We often ask for exported symbols to be documented - so one has
> a slight idea of their purpose.

They are documented, near their prototypes in the public header files, 
particularly, scst.h. It was done so, because it was supposed that one, 
writing a target driver or dev handler will have on hands the header 
files, not source code.

Should we move those comments from the functions prototypes to the 
functions definitions?

> CONFIG_SCST_STRICT_SERIALIZING has bad impact on readability.
> Could this be abstracted better?

We will try.

Thanks,
Vlad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/