[Sheepdog] [PATCH 1/3] sheep: clean up is_access_to_busy_objects()

[MORITA Kazutaka]

At Wed, 02 May 2012 13:34:56 +0800,
Liu Yuan wrote:
> 
> On 05/02/2012 12:38 PM, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
> 
> > It will check the function is correctly called with new changes in
> > future.  Probably assert() would be better.
> 
> 
> I don't think check
> 
> -		if (req->rq.flags & SD_FLAG_CMD_RECOVERY) {
> -			if (req->rq.opcode != SD_OP_READ_OBJ)
> -				eprintf("bug\n");
> 
> makes any sense. There is only one place use SD_FLAG_CMD_RECOVERY flag
> and except recovery logic, we would never have a chance to set this flag
> with conflict opcode.

What is really missing looks like the documentation about what
SD_FLAG_CMD_RECOVERY is and how it is used.  I'm okay for removing the
code.

Thanks,

Kazutaka