On 8/26/21 5:50 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 2021/08/26 12:43, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Damien,
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 ?
How about independent_access_range? That doesn't imply head positioning
and can also be used to describe a fault domain. And it is less
disk-centric than concurrent_positioning_range.
I like it, but a bit long-ish. Do you think shortening to access_range would be
acceptable ?
we would have:
/sys/block/XYZ/queue/access_ranges/...
and
struct blk_access_range {
...
sector_t sector;
sector_t nr_sectors;
}
struct blk_access_range *arange;
Adding independent does make everything even more obvious, but names become
rather long. Not an issue for the sysfs directory I think, but
struct blk_independent_access_range {
...
sector_t sector;
sector_t nr_sectors;
}
is rather a long struct name. Shortening independent to "ind" could very easily
be confused with "indirection", so that is not an option. And "iaccess" is
obscure...
I'd vote for access_range.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
