On Aug 2, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Benny Halevy wrote:
> 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.
I like pnfs_layout_hdr.
-->Andy
>
> 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
--
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
