On Tue, May 19 2009, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> I really hate the 'alignment' name, nobody will know wtf that is > >> without looking it up. The rest of the names are fairly self > >> explanatory. offset? offset_size? misalignment? Not very good with > >> names, but perhaps we can find something more appropriate :-) > > Yeah, it's a tricky thing to convey. And despite all the other > convergence otherwise happening in the standards, T10 and T13 do not > agree how to describe the logical/physical alignment. > > > Mike> I agree that 'alignment' is too terse/confusing given that it is > Mike> an offset we're exposing. How about 'alignment_offset'? > > I thought I had already changed it to alignment_offset like we talked > about a while ago. But I guess that change was only done mentally :) > > Jens, are you ok with that name? I think so, I can't think of anything better :-) If you repost an updated 5/13 patch and I'll add it to the mix. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
