From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Brown Subject: Re: [dm-devel] REQUEST for new 'topology' metrics to be moved out of the 'queue' sysfs directory. Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:58:29 +1000 Message-ID: <19012.47077.328965.919868@notabene.brown> References: <19010.62951.886231.96622@notabene.brown> <125b48b7ffc99a496fbdd512f38cada5.squirrel@neil.brown.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: message from Martin K. Petersen on Thursday June 25 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Mike Snitzer , Linus Torvalds , Alasdair G Kergon , jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, device-mapper development List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thursday June 25, martin.petersen@oracle.com wrote: > >>>>> "Neil" == NeilBrown writes: > > And just to make it clear: I completely agree with your argument that > which knob to choose is I/O size dependent. My beef with your proposal > is that I believe the length of the list should be 2. 0, 1, or infinity are the only credible sizes for this sort of list. However I feel I've written enough on this particular issue (the particular meaning of the various fields, not the directory location which I still feel strongly about). Providing the fields are clearly and unambiguously documented so that it I can use the documentation to verify the implementation (in md at least), I will be satisfied. And if the names of the files actually match the documented meaning (so e.g. s/io/write/) I might even be happy. I'm looking forward to seeing how you justify the name "physical_block_size" in a way the encompasses possibilities like a device that stripes over a heterogeneous set of disk drives ;-) Thanks, NeilBrown