Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Initial support for multi-actuator HDDs

From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Initial support for multi-actuator HDDs
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 23:03:33 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <yq11r6f8wkf.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB7081B82BD60E0C96F31C84E7E7C79@DM6PR04MB7081.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> (Damien Le Moal's message of "Thu, 26 Aug 2021 03:50:15 +0000")

Damien,

> I like it, but a bit long-ish. Do you think shortening to access_range
> would be acceptable ?

But doesn't 'access_range' imply that there are ranges that you can't
access? I think 'independent' is more important and 'access' is just a
clarification.

> Adding independent does make everything even more obvious, but names become
> rather long. Not an issue for the sysfs directory I think, but

I do think it's important that the sysfs directory in particular is the
full thing. It's a user-visible interface.

If the internal interfaces have a shorthand I guess that's OK.

> struct blk_independent_access_range {
> 	...
> 	sector_t sector;
> 	sector_t nr_sectors;
> }
>
> is rather a long struct name.

True, but presumably you'd do:

	struct blk_independent_access_range *iar;

in a variable declaration and be done with it. So I don't think the type
is a big deal. Where it becomes unwieldy is:

	blk_rq_independent_access_range_frobnicate();

Anyway. Running out of ideas. autonomous_range? sequestered_range? 

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering