From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Akira Hayakawa Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC] dm-lc: plan to go to staging Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:41:16 +0900 Message-ID: <5220AF0C.4020106@gmail.com> References: <521EA567.1070801@gmail.com> <20130829020555.GA26206@kroah.com> <20130829033023.GH4872@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <52209119.3070907@gmail.com> <20130830125014.GD12181@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130830125014.GD12181@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: dm-devel@redhat.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mpatocka@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com, kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org List-Id: dm-devel.ids > (Within the codebase, the filename and module name would still need the > prefix: we use this for auto-module loading, function name/error message > scoping etc.) >> 3) writeboost or wboost >> Concentrating on the characteristic b) >> but doesn't mention cache. > > I quite like that option. OK, I would like to rename from dm-lc to dm-writeboost. Do you agree? Akira On 8/30/13 9:50 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:33:29PM +0900, Akira Hayakawa wrote: >> I have three candidates on my mind. >> I am thinking of removing the dm- prefix as bcache and enhanceio do. > > Yes, that's fine for the general way of referring to this. > (Within the codebase, the filename and module name would still need the > prefix: we use this for auto-module loading, function name/error message > scoping etc.) > >> a) It writes in-coming writes in log-structured manner. >> b) It is extremely fast in write. >> c) It is caching software. > > Another candidate: 'lcache' - contrast with 'bcache > >> 3) writeboost or wboost >> Concentrating on the characteristic b) >> but doesn't mention cache. > > I quite like that option. > > Alasdair >