> (Within the codebase, the filename and module name would still need the > prefix: we use this for auto-module loading, function name/error message > scoping etc.) >> 3) writeboost or wboost >> Concentrating on the characteristic b) >> but doesn't mention cache. > > I quite like that option. OK, I would like to rename from dm-lc to dm-writeboost. Do you agree? Akira On 8/30/13 9:50 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:33:29PM +0900, Akira Hayakawa wrote: >> I have three candidates on my mind. >> I am thinking of removing the dm- prefix as bcache and enhanceio do. > > Yes, that's fine for the general way of referring to this. > (Within the codebase, the filename and module name would still need the > prefix: we use this for auto-module loading, function name/error message > scoping etc.) > >> a) It writes in-coming writes in log-structured manner. >> b) It is extremely fast in write. >> c) It is caching software. > > Another candidate: 'lcache' - contrast with 'bcache > >> 3) writeboost or wboost >> Concentrating on the characteristic b) >> but doesn't mention cache. > > I quite like that option. > > Alasdair > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
