On 01/27/2017 10:30 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:26 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> 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. > > Hello Jens, > > Other Linux subsystems use the term "private data" instead of PDU. How about > modifying the block layer such that it uses the same terminology? I'm > referring to function names like blk_mq_rq_from_pdu() and blk_mq_rq_to_pdu() It's been pdu since it was introduced in 3.13, I really don't see a good reason to change it. At least pdu or payload means something, where as private is just... Well, not a big fan. -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
