From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5755CC4320E for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 06:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E4F610CA for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 06:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239265AbhHZG3C (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 02:29:02 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:58832 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239046AbhHZG3B (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 02:29:01 -0400 Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB0062227C; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 06:28:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1629959293; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NjhNcE0QifWJfhwQEFw3GJMJ4rcFngyEH2Cz2sMzg0k=; b=nyU+3joCDobMWjkCYx3gTPX2JYvWJqtNhJ6NKpOiBdhnHaCPfadJYgh6fDXiuEOH2bODss IM8UrFYd/zgEIDtk326pp+baYfU/lxc/AMeEzZokwLWJx4/YEsB3OpHO5/xIxQ2fZ+H/2j ukW2LwORsax/iiUMTHFyR8ihfV3zHUI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1629959293; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NjhNcE0QifWJfhwQEFw3GJMJ4rcFngyEH2Cz2sMzg0k=; b=9utDs0eTJ+yKLxQWs7vCzd54rQXJ5Mitax4B0YQNUwu0qCFXC7jERDNr/IlE8lZXJ4tZbR l45/vH2cooENS7AQ== Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56695136A6; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 06:28:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id Jr5cEH00J2HvbwAAGKfGzw (envelope-from ); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 06:28:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Initial support for multi-actuator HDDs To: Damien Le Moal , "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Jens Axboe , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" References: <20210812075015.1090959-1-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> From: Hannes Reinecke Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 08:28:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 8/26/21 5:50 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 2021/08/26 12:43, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >> >> Damien, >> >>> I am not super happy with the name either. I used this one as the >>> least worst of possibilities I thought of. seek_range/srange ? -> >>> that is very HDD centric and as we can reuse this for things like >>> dm-linear on top of SSDs, that does not really work. I would prefer >>> something that convey the idea of "parallel command execution", since >>> this is the main point of the interface. prange ? cdm_range ? >>> req_range ? >> >> How about independent_access_range? That doesn't imply head positioning >> and can also be used to describe a fault domain. And it is less >> disk-centric than concurrent_positioning_range. > > I like it, but a bit long-ish. Do you think shortening to access_range would be > acceptable ? > > we would have: > > /sys/block/XYZ/queue/access_ranges/... > > and > > struct blk_access_range { > ... > sector_t sector; > sector_t nr_sectors; > } > > struct blk_access_range *arange; > > Adding independent does make everything even more obvious, but names become > rather long. Not an issue for the sysfs directory I think, but > > struct blk_independent_access_range { > ... > sector_t sector; > sector_t nr_sectors; > } > > is rather a long struct name. Shortening independent to "ind" could very easily > be confused with "indirection", so that is not an option. And "iaccess" is > obscure... > I'd vote for access_range. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer