lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:02:21 +0900 From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com> To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>, "Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>, Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH block#for-2.6.31] block: add request clone interface (v2) 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@...cle.com> writes: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.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? Thanks, Kiyoshi Ueda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists