Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:35:15 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
       Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: export SSD/non-rotational queue flag through sysfs
Message-ID: <20090106073515.GY32491@kernel.dk>
References: <200901051952.58029.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20090105185428.GS32491@kernel.dk> <ac3eb2510901051347r6593d0fmd64702b1689716c1@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ac3eb2510901051347r6593d0fmd64702b1689716c1@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1060
Lines: 28

On Mon, Jan 05 2009, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 19:54, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 05 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> >> +static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_nonrot_entry = {
> >> +     .attr = {.name = "nonrot", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR },
> >> +     .show = queue_nonrot_show,
> >> +     .store = queue_nonrot_store,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >
> > Lets please use a better name for export reasons, non-rotational is a
> > lot better. Nobody will know what nonrot means :-)
> 
> What's that negation good for? Can't we just have "rotational", like
> we have "removable" and not "non-removable"? :)

Non-rotational is the term typically used, since rotational is the norm
(still). So I think the negation actually makes sense in this case :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/