linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH block#for-2.6.31] block: add request clone interface (v2)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <x49zlc8cq52.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:35:53 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block#for-2.6.31] block: add request clone interface (v2)

Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com> 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 <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?

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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/