On 7/19/23 07:37, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 7/17/23 23:34, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 7/11/23 03:01, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> +/* Writes for sequential write required zones may be pipelined. */ >>> +#define QUEUE_FLAG_PIPELINE_ZONED_WRITES 8 >> >> I am not a big fan of this name as "pipeline" does not necessarily >> imply "high >> queue depth write". What about simply calling this >> QUEUE_FLAG_NO_ZONE_WRITE_LOCK, indicating that there is no need to >> write-lock >> zones ? > > Hi Damien, > > I'm not a big fan of names with negative words like "no" or "not" embedded. > Isn't pipelining standard computer science terminology? See also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_(computing). Sure, pipeline is a well known term. But I do not think it is synonymous with "high queue depth write" :) A "pipeline" for zoned write may still operate at write qd=1 per zone... Given that the default is using zone write locking, I would prefer a flag name that indicates a change to this default. What about something like QUEUE_FLAG_UNRESTRICTED_ZONE_WRITE ? But tht is beside the point as I still have reservations on this approach anyway. See my reply to patch 4. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
