From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] block: allow specifying size for extra command data Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:30:43 +0000 Message-ID: <1485538224.4267.9.camel@sandisk.com> References: <1485365126-23210-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1485365126-23210-6-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170127161254.GA16557@lst.de> <1485537668.4267.7.camel@sandisk.com> <05d94df5-0ed8-5c3a-d6a6-7e9418366bb1@fb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <05d94df5-0ed8-5c3a-d6a6-7e9418366bb1@fb.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <4AA435A0290F0442B47D8626B1DF4D15@sandisk.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: "hch@lst.de" , "axboe@fb.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "snitzer@redhat.com" , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com" List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:26 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 01/27/2017 10:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:12 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:15:55PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > +static void *alloc_request_size(gfp_t gfp_mask, void *data) > > > > > > > > I like alloc_request_simple() but alloc_request_size() seems a bit > > > > contrived. _reserve? _extra? _special? Don't have any good suggestions, > > > > I'm afraid. > > > > > > Not that I'm a fan of _size, but I like the other suggestions even less. > > > > Hello Christoph and Martin, > > > > How about using the function names alloc_full_request() / free_full_request() > > together with a comment that mentions that cmd_size is set by the LLD? > > Since we use pdu in other places, how about alloc_request_pdu() or > alloc_request_with_pdu()? > > And since it's all queued up, any bike shedding changes will have to be > incremental. Hello Jens, Other Linux subsystems use the term "private data" instead of PDU. How about modifying the block layer such that it uses the same terminology? I'm referring to function names like blk_mq_rq_from_pdu() and blk_mq_rq_to_pdu() Thanks, Bart. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-sn1nam01on0055.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.32.55]:1087 "EHLO NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933796AbdA0RtH (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:49:07 -0500 From: Bart Van Assche To: "hch@lst.de" , "axboe@fb.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" CC: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "snitzer@redhat.com" , "j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] block: allow specifying size for extra command data Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:30:43 +0000 Message-ID: <1485538224.4267.9.camel@sandisk.com> References: <1485365126-23210-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1485365126-23210-6-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170127161254.GA16557@lst.de> <1485537668.4267.7.camel@sandisk.com> <05d94df5-0ed8-5c3a-d6a6-7e9418366bb1@fb.com> In-Reply-To: <05d94df5-0ed8-5c3a-d6a6-7e9418366bb1@fb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:26 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 01/27/2017 10:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:12 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:15:55PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > +static void *alloc_request_size(gfp_t gfp_mask, void *data) > > > >=20 > > > > I like alloc_request_simple() but alloc_request_size() seems a bit > > > > contrived. _reserve? _extra? _special? Don't have any good suggesti= ons, > > > > I'm afraid. > > >=20 > > > Not that I'm a fan of _size, but I like the other suggestions even le= ss. > >=20 > > Hello Christoph and Martin, > >=20 > > How about using the function names alloc_full_request() / free_full_req= uest() > > together with a comment that mentions that cmd_size is set by the LLD? >=20 > Since we use pdu in other places, how about alloc_request_pdu() or > alloc_request_with_pdu()? >=20 > And since it's all queued up, any bike shedding changes will have to be > incremental. Hello Jens, Other Linux subsystems use the term "private data" instead of PDU. How abou= t modifying the block layer such that it uses the same terminology? I'm referring to function names like blk_mq_rq_from_pdu() and blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(= ) Thanks, Bart.=