From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: axboe@kernel.dk (Jens Axboe)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 20:10:14 -0700
Subject: [PATCH V10 01/19] block: introduce multi-page page bvec helpers
In-Reply-To: <20181119022327.GC10838@ming.t460p>
References: <20181115085306.9910-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
 <20181115085306.9910-2-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181116131305.GA3165@lst.de>
 <20181119022327.GC10838@ming.t460p>
Message-ID: <83fb4102-bffe-41f1-c8d0-3bdf61fe0ba8@kernel.dk>

On 11/18/18 7:23 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018@02:13:05PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> -#define bvec_iter_page(bvec, iter)				\
>>> +#define mp_bvec_iter_page(bvec, iter)				\
>>>  	(__bvec_iter_bvec((bvec), (iter))->bv_page)
>>>  
>>> -#define bvec_iter_len(bvec, iter)				\
>>> +#define mp_bvec_iter_len(bvec, iter)				\
>>
>> I'd much prefer if we would stick to the segment naming that
>> we also use in the higher level helper.
>>
>> So segment_iter_page, segment_iter_len, etc.
> 
> We discussed the naming problem before, one big problem is that the 'segment'
> in bio_for_each_segment*() means one single page segment actually.
> 
> If we use segment_iter_page() here for multi-page segment, it may
> confuse people.
> 
> Of course, I prefer to the naming of segment/page, 
> 
> And Jens didn't agree to rename bio_for_each_segment*() before.

I didn't like frivolous renaming (and I still don't), but mp_
is horrible imho. Don't name these after the fact that they
are done in conjunction with supporting multipage bvecs. That
very fact will be irrelevant very soon

-- 
Jens Axboe