Even though I am not _that_ familiar with the code in question, that is how I
understood it too.
> I agree with Jens in that the practice is rather ugly, but that
> is the way the driver worked before io_request_lock disappeared and
> I think that improving that stylistic issue is not a prerequisite
> for conversion from io_request_lock to host->host_lock.
Ugly it is. It was not my intention to clean up the code, just make the smallest change
necessary to get it to work. The maintainer should probably do a closer examination.
> If I were you, Morten, I would go ahead with your patch
> that makes the minimal changes and then, if you want, make stylistic
> improvements as one or more separate patches, which are something
> that you may want to talk over with the mainter of that driver, if
> there currently is one.
Sure - but who is the maintainer ? :)
> Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104
> firstname.lastname@example.org \ / San Jose, California 95129-1034
> +1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
> fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to email@example.com
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
"Det er ikke lett å være menneske" - sitat fra en klok person.
mvh Morten Helgesen UNIX System Administrator & C Developer Nextframe AS firstname.lastname@example.org / 93445641 http://www.nextframe.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/