On 01/27/2017 10:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:12 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:15:55PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>> +static void *alloc_request_size(gfp_t gfp_mask, void *data) >>> >>> I like alloc_request_simple() but alloc_request_size() seems a bit >>> contrived. _reserve? _extra? _special? Don't have any good suggestions, >>> I'm afraid. >> >> Not that I'm a fan of _size, but I like the other suggestions even less. > > Hello Christoph and Martin, > > How about using the function names alloc_full_request() / free_full_request() > together with a comment that mentions that cmd_size is set by the LLD? Since we use pdu in other places, how about alloc_request_pdu() or alloc_request_with_pdu()? And since it's all queued up, any bike shedding changes will have to be incremental. -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
