lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH block#for-2.6.31] block: add request clone interface (v2)
    Date
    Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> writes:

    > Hi Boaz, Jeff, Jens,
    >
    > Thank you for your ideas.
    > It's time to decide now? Please see below.
    >
    > On 2009/06/15 18:30 +0900, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
    >> > On 06/15/2009 06:31 AM, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
    >>> >> On 06/12/2009 11:33 PM +0900, Jeff Moyer wrote:
    >>>> >>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> writes:
    >>>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote:
    >>>>>> >>>>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> writes:
    >>>>>> >>>>> Is blk_rq_unprep_clone really the best name?
    >>>>>> >>>>> ^^^^^^
    >>>>> >>>> Probably not, but I'm not very good at coming up with elegant names.
    >>>>> >>>> Your email should have included a new suggestion :-)
    >>>> >>> Fair enough. ;)
    >>>> >>>
    >>>>> >>>> - blk_rq_unprep_clone(struct request *clone)
    >>>>> >>>> * Frees cloned bios from the clone request.
    >>>> >>> Why not blk_rq_free_clone?
    >>> >> Because the 'clone' is not freed in this interface.
    >>> >> This interface frees only bios in the 'clone'.
    >>> >> Allocating/freeing the 'clone' are the caller's work, since
    >>> >> only the caller knows how to allocate/free it.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> 'prep' after 'alloc' and 'unprep' before 'free' is symmetric
    >>> >> and I feel a good candidate for my request-stacking driver,
    >>> >> so I chose it.
    >> >
    >> > I'm not a native English speaker as well, so I'm fine
    >> > with blk_rq_{prep,unprep}_clone. But maybe the English
    >> > people don't like it?
    >> >
    >> > Perhaps
    >> > blk_rq_{clone,declone} or blk_rq_{clone,declone}_bios
    >> >
    >> > (Both unclone and declone are found on the net but are not
    >> > found in the free dictionary)
    >
    > I had a feeling that blk_rq_{clone,declone} allocates/frees
    > the clone request inside the interfaces like bio_clone(), so
    > I didn't take such namings.
    > And, the clone setup interface may not only make bio clones
    > but also do something else (for other request members), so
    > I didn't add any 'bio' namings to the interfaces.
    >
    > Jens, what do you prefer?

    I can live with it as it stands. prep/unprep at least has some
    symmetry.

    Cheers,
    Jeff


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-16 14:39    [W:0.024 / U:64.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site