On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 08:10:14PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 11/18/18 7:23 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 02:13:05PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>> -#define bvec_iter_page(bvec, iter) \ > >>> +#define mp_bvec_iter_page(bvec, iter) \ > >>> (__bvec_iter_bvec((bvec), (iter))->bv_page) > >>> > >>> -#define bvec_iter_len(bvec, iter) \ > >>> +#define mp_bvec_iter_len(bvec, iter) \ > >> > >> I'd much prefer if we would stick to the segment naming that > >> we also use in the higher level helper. > >> > >> So segment_iter_page, segment_iter_len, etc. > > > > We discussed the naming problem before, one big problem is that the 'segment' > > in bio_for_each_segment*() means one single page segment actually. > > > > If we use segment_iter_page() here for multi-page segment, it may > > confuse people. > > > > Of course, I prefer to the naming of segment/page, > > > > And Jens didn't agree to rename bio_for_each_segment*() before. > > I didn't like frivolous renaming (and I still don't), but mp_ > is horrible imho. Don't name these after the fact that they > are done in conjunction with supporting multipage bvecs. That > very fact will be irrelevant very soon OK, so what is your suggestion for the naming issue? Are you fine to use segment_iter_page() here? Then the term of 'segment' may be interpreted as multi-page segment here, but as single-page in bio_for_each_segment*(). thanks Ming -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
