On 07/28/2010 05:29 PM, Fred Isaman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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" >> > > All I meant that "no, this is not the struct layout4 above." > > There currently exists: > > struct nfs4_pnfs_layout_segment { > u32 iomode; > u64 offset; > u64 length; > }; > > which is used to hold range information, but which is easy to confuse > with struct pnfs_layout_segment. > OK, perhaps the STD failed to define that RANGE structure that got open coded in lots of operations. Adding that should be a refinement (use the new type where it is open coded). Not the complete re-ordering and invention of new structures that carry the same information but different. > I REALLY want the name nfs4_pnfs_layout_segment changed. > OK Agreed *pnfs_layout_range* is a good name. Because anything nfs4_ is expected to derive from the STD, and the above is our own invention. Some comments to that effect could be nice. > When possible, I'm all for changing names to coincide with those used > in the spec. But note that those structures are most useful for XDR > encoding/decoding, and don't always correspond to the information we > need to pass around internally. > I wish we could, other then such refinements like the new pnfs_layout_range, stick closer to the STD. Including an nfs4_layout structure which corresponds to the layout4 from RFC. > Fred > (I know, words are cheep, I wish I had the time, busy with raid5/6. Just my $0.017) 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