From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:16:31 -0400 From: Keith Busch To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Johannes Thumshirn , Jens Axboe , Sagi Grimberg , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] nvme: track shared namespaces Message-ID: <20170921151631.GA10713@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170918231453.27128-1-hch@lst.de> <20170918231453.27128-9-hch@lst.de> <20170920083643.xe6dbr4iu53hhm5t@linux-x5ow.site> <20170920145436.GA4709@lst.de> <20170921052217.kmrcmsf4gttubsyd@linux-x5ow.site> <20170921143748.GB18424@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170921143748.GB18424@lst.de> List-ID: On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 04:37:48PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 07:22:17AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > But head also has connotations in the SAN world. Maybe nvme_ns_chain? > > > > I know that's why I didn't really like it all too much in the first place as > > well. For nvme_ns_chain, it's not a chain really (the list itself is a chain, > > the structure really is the list head...), but I suck at naming things so. > > Well, it _is_ the structure for the namespace, and that's the fundamental > problem here given that we use that name for something else at the > moment. > > We could hav nvme_namespace and nvme_ns, but I'm not sure that this > helps clarity.. If there weren't resistence to renaming structs, it would be more aligned to how the specification calls these if we rename nvme_ns to nvme_ns_path, and what you're calling nvme_ns_head is should just be the nvme_ns. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: keith.busch@intel.com (Keith Busch) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:16:31 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 8/9] nvme: track shared namespaces In-Reply-To: <20170921143748.GB18424@lst.de> References: <20170918231453.27128-1-hch@lst.de> <20170918231453.27128-9-hch@lst.de> <20170920083643.xe6dbr4iu53hhm5t@linux-x5ow.site> <20170920145436.GA4709@lst.de> <20170921052217.kmrcmsf4gttubsyd@linux-x5ow.site> <20170921143748.GB18424@lst.de> Message-ID: <20170921151631.GA10713@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017@04:37:48PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017@07:22:17AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > But head also has connotations in the SAN world. Maybe nvme_ns_chain? > > > > I know that's why I didn't really like it all too much in the first place as > > well. For nvme_ns_chain, it's not a chain really (the list itself is a chain, > > the structure really is the list head...), but I suck at naming things so. > > Well, it _is_ the structure for the namespace, and that's the fundamental > problem here given that we use that name for something else at the > moment. > > We could hav nvme_namespace and nvme_ns, but I'm not sure that this > helps clarity.. If there weren't resistence to renaming structs, it would be more aligned to how the specification calls these if we rename nvme_ns to nvme_ns_path, and what you're calling nvme_ns_head is should just be the nvme_ns.