Damien, > I am not super happy with the name either. I used this one as the > least worst of possibilities I thought of. seek_range/srange ? -> > that is very HDD centric and as we can reuse this for things like > dm-linear on top of SSDs, that does not really work. I would prefer > something that convey the idea of "parallel command execution", since > this is the main point of the interface. prange ? cdm_range ? > req_range ? How about independent_access_range? That doesn't imply head positioning and can also be used to describe a fault domain. And it is less disk-centric than concurrent_positioning_range. I concur that those names are a bit unwieldy but at least they are somewhat descriptive. I consulted the thesaurus and didn't really like the other options (discrete, disjoint, separate, etc.). I think 'independent' is more accurate for this and better than 'concurrent' and 'parallel'. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
