On Jul. 28, 2010, 18:10 +0300, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
I'm ok with _range, though it is a bit more than a range since it also has an iomode
I propose pnfs_layout_hdr to replace pnfs_layout_type.
Benny
>> 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
--
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
