Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755299AbZFPMgT (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:36:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751998AbZFPMgH (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:36:07 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:35761 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750908AbZFPMgG (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:36:06 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer To: Kiyoshi Ueda Cc: Boaz Harrosh , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, device-mapper development , "Jun'ichi Nomura" Subject: Re: [PATCH block#for-2.6.31] block: add request clone interface (v2) References: <4A3075B2.9040208@ct.jp.nec.com> <20090611110903.GO11363@kernel.dk> <20090612133014.GK11363@kernel.dk> <4A35C0A4.20707@ct.jp.nec.com> <4A3614D1.20403@panasas.com> <4A370B3D.4050108@ct.jp.nec.com> X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:35:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A370B3D.4050108@ct.jp.nec.com> (Kiyoshi Ueda's message of "Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:02:21 +0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2308 Lines: 60 Kiyoshi Ueda 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 writes: >>>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> Jens Axboe 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 -- 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/