On 2021/08/26 11:42, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Damien, > >> Re-ping ? Anything against this series ? Can we get it queued for 5.15 ? > > Wrt. the choice of 'crange': > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CAHk-=wiZ=wwa4oAA0y=Kztafgp0n+BDTEV6ybLoH2nvLBeJBLA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Yes, I have been reading this thread. Very good one. > > I share Linus' sentiment. > > I really think 'crange' is a horribly non-descriptive name compared to > logical_block_size, max_sectors_kb, discard_max_bytes, and the other > things we export. > > In addition, the recently posted copy offload patches also used > 'crange', in that context to describe a 'copy range'. Yes, saw that too. > Anyway. Just my opinion. Thanks for sharing. I am not super happy with the name either. I used this one as the least worst of possibilities I thought of. seek_range/srange ? -> that is very HDD centric and as we can reuse this for things like dm-linear on top of SSDs, that does not really work. I would prefer something that convey the idea of "parallel command execution", since this is the main point of the interface. prange ? cdm_range ? req_range ? Naming is really hard... > Jens: Feel free to add my Acked-by: to the sd pieces. My SCSI discovery > rework won't make 5.15. > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
