Re: [RFC PATCH v2] support ioctl for tunable user request

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Monday 05 September 2011, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:47:58PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> >> The concept is similar with DISCARD request except no-wait for request complete
> >>
> >>  #define REQ_DISCARD            (1 << __REQ_DISCARD)
> >> +#define REQ_TUNE               (1 << __REQ_TUNE)
> >>
> >> As it's hard to detect the idle time at device level, user send the
> >> tune request to device when idle.
> >
> > But what does a "tune" request actually do?  It's an overly generic
> > term, but I still can't even think of what it would do to a storage
> 
> Yes, tune is generic term, that's reason to send the RFC patch, we
> consider the several names, but not found the proper name, if you
> suggest the proper name, it can change the proper one.

Would __REQ_GC as a shortcut for garbage collection fit? Right now,
I also think TUNE is not at all describing what we expect the drive
to do, but it's hard to come up with a term that is generic enough
to cover similar concepts in other hardware while still describing
what the drive does.

	Arnd