From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 17:25:31 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Keith Busch Cc: Christoph Hellwig , 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: <20170924152531.GA16753@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> <20170921151631.GA10713@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170921151631.GA10713@localhost.localdomain> List-ID: On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:16:31AM -0400, Keith Busch wrote: > 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. Then we'd still need a good name for what's now nvme_ns :) But seriously speaking - I'm a little worried because Linus is really pissed at me for doing major refactoring in block land (by proxy of Jens who gets all the heat). I just don't feel comfortable with a rename at the moment, even if it's the right thing. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 17:25:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 8/9] nvme: track shared namespaces In-Reply-To: <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> <20170921151631.GA10713@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20170924152531.GA16753@lst.de> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017@11:16:31AM -0400, Keith Busch wrote: > 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. Then we'd still need a good name for what's now nvme_ns :) But seriously speaking - I'm a little worried because Linus is really pissed at me for doing major refactoring in block land (by proxy of Jens who gets all the heat). I just don't feel comfortable with a rename at the moment, even if it's the right thing.