On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:54:42 +0100 Alexander Kühn <alexander.kuehn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Zitat von NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>: > > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:14:04 -0800 "Williams, Dan J" > > <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:18 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> f248f8c md: create externally visible flags for supporting hot-replace. > >> >> > >> >> 'replaceable' just strikes me as a confusing name as all devices are > >> >> nominally "replaceable", but whether you want it to be actively > >> >> replaced is a different consideration. What about "incumbent" to mark > >> >> the disk as currently holding a position we want it to vacate and > >> >> remove any potential confusion with 'replacement'. > > 'vacating' strikes me as the obvious choice, no? Interesting suggestion, but not quite the right meaning. The bit can be set before a replacement is available. So it isn't a statement about what is happening to the device, but about what should happening to the device. The meaning we want is "replace this device as soon as possible". I don't think there is one word that really has a meaning like that. "replaceable" was the closest I could get but that means "can be replaced" rather than "should be replaced" and as Dan pointed out that is a significant difference. Maybe "deprecated"?? However I don't think using that would improve clarity. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
