| Message ID | 1393927373-1472-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 12:02:53PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> > > We already use term attach/detach for UBI->MTD relations, let's not use this > for UBI->ubiblock relations to avoid confusion. Just use 'create' and 'delete' s/delete/remove > instead. E.g., "create a R/O block device on top of a UBI volume". > > Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > Change looks good, except I'd like to change ubiblock_add/ubiblock_del with ubiblock_create/ubiblock_remove for consistency. I haven't been too consistent with this terms and it's a good time to fix it. Want me to prepare a patch?
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:02 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > + * This feature is compiled in the UBI core, and adds a 'block' parameter > + * to allow early creation of block devices on top of UBI volumes. Runtime > + * block creation/removal for UBI volumes is provided through two UBI ioctls: > + * UBI_IOCVOLATTBLK and UBI_IOCVOLDETBLK. > */ I think the ioctl names should also be consistent. s/AT/CR/, s/DET/RM/, may be?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 02:57:38PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:02 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > + * This feature is compiled in the UBI core, and adds a 'block' parameter > > + * to allow early creation of block devices on top of UBI volumes. Runtime > > + * block creation/removal for UBI volumes is provided through two UBI ioctls: > > + * UBI_IOCVOLATTBLK and UBI_IOCVOLDETBLK. > > */ > > I think the ioctl names should also be consistent. > s/AT/CR/, s/DET/RM/, may be? > Ah, yes. Good catch. Let's write them down, so we can see how they result: UBI_IOCVOLCRBLK, UBI_IOCVOLRMBLK. Aren't these too unreadable? How about something along UBI_IOCBLK_CREAT UBI_IOCBLK_RM ?
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 10:59 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 02:57:38PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:02 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > + * This feature is compiled in the UBI core, and adds a 'block' parameter > > > + * to allow early creation of block devices on top of UBI volumes. Runtime > > > + * block creation/removal for UBI volumes is provided through two UBI ioctls: > > > + * UBI_IOCVOLATTBLK and UBI_IOCVOLDETBLK. > > > */ > > > > I think the ioctl names should also be consistent. > > s/AT/CR/, s/DET/RM/, may be? > > > > Ah, yes. Good catch. > > Let's write them down, so we can see how they result: UBI_IOCVOLCRBLK, > UBI_IOCVOLRMBLK. Aren't these too unreadable? Dunno, the other ones are similarly unreadable. > How about something along UBI_IOCBLK_CREAT UBI_IOCBLK_RM ? Well, would be a little inconsistent, but more readable, yes. Usually ioctl names to not have underscores, though, no?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:13:16PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 10:59 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 02:57:38PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:02 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > > + * This feature is compiled in the UBI core, and adds a 'block' parameter > > > > + * to allow early creation of block devices on top of UBI volumes. Runtime > > > > + * block creation/removal for UBI volumes is provided through two UBI ioctls: > > > > + * UBI_IOCVOLATTBLK and UBI_IOCVOLDETBLK. > > > > */ > > > > > > I think the ioctl names should also be consistent. > > > s/AT/CR/, s/DET/RM/, may be? > > > > > > > Ah, yes. Good catch. > > > > Let's write them down, so we can see how they result: UBI_IOCVOLCRBLK, > > UBI_IOCVOLRMBLK. Aren't these too unreadable? > > Dunno, the other ones are similarly unreadable. > Yes, indeed. > > How about something along UBI_IOCBLK_CREAT UBI_IOCBLK_RM ? > > Well, would be a little inconsistent, but more readable, yes. Indeed, it's less consistent. > Usually > ioctl names to not have underscores, though, no? > A quick grep shows some ioctls follow that rule, some don't. I'd say it's your call.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c index cea7d1c..69955ce 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c @@ -29,10 +29,10 @@ * * LEB number = addressed byte / LEB size * - * This feature is compiled in the UBI core, and adds a new 'block' parameter - * to allow early block device attaching. Runtime block attach/detach for UBI - * volumes is provided through two new UBI ioctls: UBI_IOCVOLATTBLK and - * UBI_IOCVOLDETBLK. + * This feature is compiled in the UBI core, and adds a 'block' parameter + * to allow early creation of block devices on top of UBI volumes. Runtime + * block creation/removal for UBI volumes is provided through two UBI ioctls: + * UBI_IOCVOLATTBLK and UBI_IOCVOLDETBLK. */ #include <linux/module.h> @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static int ubiblock_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, switch (notification_type) { case UBI_VOLUME_ADDED: /* - * We want to enforce explicit block device attaching for + * We want to enforce explicit block device creation for * volumes, so when a volume is added we do nothing. */ break; @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ open_volume_desc(const char *name, int ubi_num, int vol_id) return ubi_open_volume(ubi_num, vol_id, UBI_READONLY); } -static int __init ubiblock_attach_from_param(void) +static int __init ubiblock_create_from_param(void) { int i, ret; struct ubiblock_param *p; @@ -592,7 +592,7 @@ static int __init ubiblock_attach_from_param(void) return ret; } -static void ubiblock_detach_all(void) +static void ubiblock_remove_all(void) { struct ubiblock *next; struct ubiblock *dev; @@ -618,13 +618,13 @@ int __init ubiblock_init(void) return ubiblock_major; /* Attach block devices from 'block=' module param */ - ret = ubiblock_attach_from_param(); + ret = ubiblock_create_from_param(); if (ret) - goto err_detach; + goto err_remove; /* - * Block devices needs to be attached to volumes explicitly - * upon user request. So we ignore existing volumes. + * Block devices are only created upon user requests, so we ignore + * existing volumes. */ ret = ubi_register_volume_notifier(&ubiblock_notifier, 1); if (ret) @@ -633,14 +633,14 @@ int __init ubiblock_init(void) err_unreg: unregister_blkdev(ubiblock_major, "ubiblock"); -err_detach: - ubiblock_detach_all(); +err_remove: + ubiblock_remove_all(); return ret; } void __exit ubiblock_exit(void) { ubi_unregister_volume_notifier(&ubiblock_notifier); - ubiblock_detach_all(); + ubiblock_remove_all(); unregister_blkdev(ubiblock_major, "ubiblock"); }