From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 5 07:40:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08A116A407; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 07:40:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mjacob@freebsd.org) Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0459A43C9D; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 07:39:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mjacob@freebsd.org) Received: from ns1.feral.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.feral.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kB57e8dF021097; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 23:40:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjacob@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (mjacob@localhost) by ns1.feral.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id kB57e7b5021094; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 23:40:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjacob@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: ns1.feral.com: mjacob owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 23:40:07 -0800 (PST) From: mjacob@freebsd.org X-X-Sender: mjacob@ns1.feral.com To: Attilio Rao , Ade Lovett , Bruce Evans In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10612041532r24989510g90e41eb6f41cadb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061204233902.K21080@ns1.feral.com> References: <20061119161631.L44297@ns1.feral.com> <3bbf2fe10611191631h6883b862uf8088533913a7bc6@mail.gmail.com> <20061120221153.GA5155@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <3bbf2fe10611201418m15d50703m37d9d5620e5c832d@mail.gmail.com> <20061204150922.F18492@ns1.feral.com> <3bbf2fe10612041532r24989510g90e41eb6f41cadb5@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a code reduction function addition to cam_xpt X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mjacob@freebsd.org List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:40:19 -0000 > 2006/12/5, mjacob@freebsd.org : >> >> >> Was there ever a consensus about this to the point of: >> >> a) Yes, this is a nice thing to have >> b) Should it be a define or a function? >> >> I obviously think yes for #a. I lean toward a function. Comments? > > a) yes > b) define > A number of folks have spoken. On balance, the function is more readable. Thanks all.