From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] block: allow specifying size for extra command data Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:12:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20170127161254.GA16557@lst.de> References: <1485365126-23210-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1485365126-23210-6-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer , Jens Axboe , dm-devel@redhat.com, Junichi Nomura , Christoph Hellwig List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:15:55PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > +static void *alloc_request_size(gfp_t gfp_mask, void *data) > > I like alloc_request_simple() but alloc_request_size() seems a bit > contrived. _reserve? _extra? _special? Don't have any good suggestions, > I'm afraid. Not that I'm a fan of _size, but I like the other suggestions even less.