Re: [RFC][V8][PATCH 0/5] btrfs: allocation_hint mode

[Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 07:53:34PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 12/13/21 22:15, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 08:54:24PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> > > Gentle ping :-)
> > > 
> > > Are there anyone of the mains developer interested in supporting this patch ?
> > > 
> > > I am open to improve it if required.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry I missed this go by.  I like the interface, we don't have a use for
> > device->type yet, so this fits nicely.
> > 
> > I don't see the btrfs-progs patches in my inbox, and these don't apply, so
> > you'll definitely need to refresh for a proper review, but looking at these
> > patches they seem sane enough, and I like the interface.  I'd like to hear
> > Zygo's opinion as well.
> > 
> > If we're going to use device->type for this, and since we don't have a user of
> > device->type, I'd also like you to go ahead and re-name ->type to
> > ->allocation_policy, that way it's clear what we're using it for now.
> 
> The allocation policy requires only few bits (3 or 4); instead "type" is 64 bit wide.
> We can allocate more bits for future extension, but I don't think that it is necessary
> to allocate all the bits to the "allocation_policy".
> 
> This to say that renaming the field as allocation_policy is too restrictive if in future
> we will use the other bits for another purposes.
> 
> I don't like the terms "type". May be flags, is it better ?

Sure, rename it to flags and make the allocation policies flags.  The important
part is that "type" isn't accurate, and since it's not used by anything
currently we're free to rename it so it better represents the information it
holds.  Thanks,

Josef