On 19/08/25 10:38AM, Ira Weiny wrote:
>Neeraj Kumar wrote:
>> LSA 2.1 format introduces region label, which can also reside
>> into LSA along with only namespace label as per v1.1 and v1.2
>>
>> As both namespace and region labels are of same size of 256 bytes.
>
>Soft-NAK
>
>Having 2 data structures of the same size is not a reason to combine their
>types.
>
>Please explain how nd_namespace_label is related to the new region label
>and why combining them is a net benefit.  This change may need to be made
>later in the series if that makes it more understandable.
>

Hi Ira,

Currently we have support of LSA v1.1 and v1.2 in Linux, Where LSA can
only accommodate one type of labels, which is namespace label.

But as per LSA 2.1, LSA can accommodate both namespace and region
labels.

As v1.1 and v1.2 only namespace label therefore we have "struct
nd_namespace_label"

As this patch-set supports LSA 2.1, where an LSA can have any of
namespace or region label. It is therefore, introduced
"struct nd_lsa_label" in-place of "struct nd_namespace_label"

>> Thus renamed "struct nd_namespace_label" to "struct nd_lsa_label",
>> where both namespace label and region label can stay as union.
>
>For now I'm naking this patch unless there is some justification for
>changing all the names vs just introducing "nd_region_label" or whatever
>it might need to be named.
>
>Ira
>

I understand that this renaming has created some extra noise in existing
code. May be I will revisit this change and try using region label
handling
separately instead of using union.

Regards,
Neeraj