Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Delete scsi_{get,free}_host_dev()
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
        jejb@linux.ibm.com
Cc:     bvanassche@acm.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, ming.lei@redhat.com
References: <1624640314-93055-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Message-ID: <044a31ed-f6e9-3017-4973-3a02765933e0@suse.de>
Date:   Sat, 26 Jun 2021 13:55:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1624640314-93055-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/25/21 6:58 PM, John Garry wrote:
> Functions scsi_{get,free}_host_dev() no longer have any in-tree users, so
> delete them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> ---
> An alt agenda of this patch is to get clarification on whether this API
> should be used for Hannes' reserved commands series.
> 
> Originally the recommendation was to use it, but now it seems to be to
> not use it:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/55918d68-7385-0153-0bd9-d822d3ce4c21@suse.de/
> 
Please don't.

Before we're doing something like this I would like to have 
clarification from Christoph which way he prefers for reserved commands. 
Personally I _do_ like the host dev approach for reserved commands as it 
allows us to re-use existing infrastructure.

Christoph?

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke                Kernel Storage Architect
hare@suse.de                              +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer