On 07/28/2010 04:48 PM, Fred Isaman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> struct nfs4_pnfs_layout_segment => pnfs_layout_range
>>
>> Isn't this a struct layout4 above?
>
> No, this is probably the most confusingly named structure of them all,
> and one I would strongly urge be changed along the line of Andy's
> suggestion.
>
> Fred
>
We are like a married couple on a freezing night. Each pulling the blanket
to his/her side.
I'm trying to pull the blanket to the side. where all these are converted
to exactly the names and structures as stated by the standard.
That the Linux-pnfs-workgroup tried to invent their own STD is a misfortune
which I missed, getting so late into the game.
What side of the Bed are you pulling to?
I wish you elaborate more, and explain, instead of just saying "NO"
struct layout_content {
layouttype4 loc_type;
void *loc_body;
};
struct layout {
offset4 lo_offset;
length4 lo_length;
layoutiomode4 lo_iomode;
layout_content4 lo_content;
};
struct layoutget_args {
/* CURRENT_FH: file */
bool loga_signal_layout_avail;
layouttype4 loga_layout_type;
layoutiomode4 loga_iomode;
offset4 loga_offset;
length4 loga_length;
length4 loga_minlength;
stateid4 loga_stateid;
count4 loga_maxcount;
};
struct layoutget_res {
bool logr_return_on_close;
stateid4 logr_stateid;
layout logr_layout;
};
How is the above less useful then the mess we have now?
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
