From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753303Ab1ILSEw (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:04:52 -0400 Received: from 87-104-106-3-dynamic-customer.profibernet.dk ([87.104.106.3]:50578 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751819Ab1ILSEs (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:04:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4E6E49BE.6020005@kernel.dk> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:04:46 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig CC: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bharrosh@panasas.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: export __make_request References: <20110911145053.GA28996@infradead.org> <4E6DD7F0.8020903@kernel.dk> <20110912122507.GA12229@infradead.org> <4E6DFA8C.3030400@kernel.dk> <20110912133826.GA22548@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20110912133826.GA22548@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011-09-12 15:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:26:52PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> What happens to the existing blk_make_request? >> >> I ended up naming __make_request() blk_queue_bio() instead. > > I really hate naming things different from the method they are > implementing. I've tried to figure out what the point of the > old blk_make_request is - why would we not go through > generic_make_request for this? > > Boaz, any idea? I tend to agree, we could rename the existing blk_make_request(). It could be blk_make_request_from_bio() or something like that, since that's what it does. -- Jens Axboe