RE: [Open-FCoE] [PATCH] scsi: fix Wunused-but-set-variable buildwarning

[Prasad Gondi]

Thanks Vasu for the details.

I agree current patch is good to go. I have no objections and it is an extension to the older patch which removed the " fsp->tgt_flags" flags.

Thanks,
Prasad
-----Original Message-----
From: vasu.dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:vasu.dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 10:10 AM
To: Nicholas Mc Guire
Cc: Prasad Gondi; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; James E.J. Bottomley; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Nicholas Mc Guire; fcoe-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Open-FCoE] [PATCH] scsi: fix Wunused-but-set-variable buildwarning

On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 09:14 +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Prasad Gondi wrote:
> 
> > It seems like     rpriv is used to set the fsp->tgt_flags originally
> > 
> > >   fsp->tgt_flags = rpriv->flags
> > 
> > And fsp->tgt_flags are used in "fc_fcp_cmd_send" like this
> > 
> >         setup_timer(&fsp->timer, fc_fcp_timeout, (unsigned long)fsp);
> >         if (rpriv->flags & FC_RP_FLAGS_REC_SUPPORTED)
> >                 fc_fcp_timer_set(fsp, get_fsp_rec_tov(fsp));
> > 
> > Main purpose of this flags used is to set the correct TimeOut Value for fc_fcp_timer. 
> > 
> > So is the removal of the "fsp->tgt_flags = rpriv->flags" in fc_queuecommand() is intentional? Or by mistake?
> > 
> thats something I can't say - but the commit message indicated that 
> the removal of tgt_flags was intentional.
> 

It was intentional and good cleanup since now rpriv->flags is used directly with that change instead of storing in fsp->tgt_flags as it was before.

> > Once we clear that out we can see whether this change make sense?
> >

Anycase the patch under discussion is straight forward clean up patch since it just removes a local stack variable which is not used.

Thanks,
Vasu