lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BIO] request->flags ambiguity
On Fri, Jun 27 2003, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> I might just be completely off base, but something struck me
> lately as odd, and i`d like to hear what you folks think about
> the issue.
>
> I`m wondering about the ambiguity of the struct request->flags
> field.
>
> Is it ok to have a possibility of a request with conflicting
> meanings attached to it? For example REQ_CMD | REQ_PM_SHUTDOWN
> | REQ_SPECIAL.

No of course not.

> It may be, depending on the implementation, that they are not
> completely conflicting, but its hard to believe that there is
> zero ambiguity at all.
>
> If i`m not mistaken this looks as creating opportunities for
> various subtle bugs.
>
> Shouldn`t it make more sense to separate request-type-indicator
> flags into a separate unambiguous type field, which would take
> one of the following values: - read/write request - sense query
> - power control - special request
>
> And not a currently possible combination of all of them, which
> seem to be the current situation.

There has been talk of that before, search the archives.

--
Jens Axboe

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:36    [W:1.045 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site