On 06/15/2009 06:31 AM, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On 06/12/2009 11:33 PM +0900, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On Thu, Jun 11 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Kiyoshi Ueda
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)
Boaz
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
