From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Clements Subject: Re: [PATCH] md: new bitmap sysfs interface Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:53:19 -0400 Message-ID: <44D1570F.4020406@steeleye.com> References: <44C5BA6F.3010404@steeleye.com> <17617.21634.568180.436250@cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <17617.21634.568180.436250@cse.unsw.edu.au> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Neil Brown wrote: > Is 'bitmap' the best name for the sysfs file? > It seems a bit generic to me. > > write-bits-here-to-dirty-them-in-the-bitmap > > is probably (no, definitely) too verbose. > > dirty-in-bitmap > maybe? > bitmap-set-bits > Any better suggestions? I like "bitmap-set-bits" or "bitmap-dirty" maybe. I had thought about this, but never changed the name. I agree, something more than just "bitmap" is probably appropriate, so that if we ever add a generic bitmap output or input (to clear bits, maybe) then we still have "bitmap" available, and also because (as you said) "bitmap" is a little too generic for what this interface really does. Thanks, Paul