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

Message-ID: <4A370B3D.4050108@ct.jp.nec.com>
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/