Return-Path: Received: from daytona.panasas.com ([67.152.220.89]:29410 "EHLO daytona.int.panasas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753926Ab0G1OMI (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:12:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4C503AB5.1090204@panasas.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:12:05 +0300 From: Boaz Harrosh To: Fred Isaman CC: Andy Adamson , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: pNFS client structure and function rename suggestions References: <4C500FFD.4000206@panasas.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On 07/28/2010 04:48 PM, Fred Isaman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>> struct nfs4_pnfs_layout_segment => pnfs_layout_range >> >> Isn't this a struct layout4 above? > > No, this is probably the most confusingly named structure of them all, > and one I would strongly urge be changed along the line of Andy's > suggestion. > > Fred > We are like a married couple on a freezing night. Each pulling the blanket to his/her side. I'm trying to pull the blanket to the side. where all these are converted to exactly the names and structures as stated by the standard. That the Linux-pnfs-workgroup tried to invent their own STD is a misfortune which I missed, getting so late into the game. What side of the Bed are you pulling to? I wish you elaborate more, and explain, instead of just saying "NO" struct layout_content { layouttype4 loc_type; void *loc_body; }; struct layout { offset4 lo_offset; length4 lo_length; layoutiomode4 lo_iomode; layout_content4 lo_content; }; struct layoutget_args { /* CURRENT_FH: file */ bool loga_signal_layout_avail; layouttype4 loga_layout_type; layoutiomode4 loga_iomode; offset4 loga_offset; length4 loga_length; length4 loga_minlength; stateid4 loga_stateid; count4 loga_maxcount; }; struct layoutget_res { bool logr_return_on_close; stateid4 logr_stateid; layout logr_layout; }; How is the above less useful then the mess we have now? Boaz