From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] block: Export I/O topology for block devices and partitions Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:15:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20090519181530.GH4140@kernel.dk> References: <1242362435-11953-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <1242362435-11953-6-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <20090518175741.GM4140@kernel.dk> <20090518181204.GC32085@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:38971 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753345AbZESSP3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 14:15:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Mike Snitzer , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 19 2009, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer writes: > > >> I really hate the 'alignment' name, nobody will know wtf that is > >> without looking it up. The rest of the names are fairly self > >> explanatory. offset? offset_size? misalignment? Not very good with > >> names, but perhaps we can find something more appropriate :-) > > Yeah, it's a tricky thing to convey. And despite all the other > convergence otherwise happening in the standards, T10 and T13 do not > agree how to describe the logical/physical alignment. > > > Mike> I agree that 'alignment' is too terse/confusing given that it is > Mike> an offset we're exposing. How about 'alignment_offset'? > > I thought I had already changed it to alignment_offset like we talked > about a while ago. But I guess that change was only done mentally :) > > Jens, are you ok with that name? I think so, I can't think of anything better :-) If you repost an updated 5/13 patch and I'll add it to the mix. -- Jens Axboe