On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 14:28 -0700, Joe Eykholt wrote: > Robert Love wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 11:10 -0700, Joe Eykholt wrote:
<snip> > >> Along with this, I'd like to rename struct fc_rport_libfc_priv to > >> something else. > >> Any suggestions? How about fc_peer? or fc_pport? I want something short > >> like that, > >> not specifically a target or initiator, not necessarily an N port or > >> a discovered port, maybe just a port? > >> > > Of the ones you list I think I like fc_pport best, although it's a bit > > strange. fc_peer doesn't mean that much to me since it's missing "port" > > and fc_port would falsely indicate some type of inheritance (that > > fc_lport should be a child of fc_port) or something (to me at least). > > I have the same misgivings, and after starting to code this up, it seems > really strange to have a function called fc_rport_login that takes a pport > as an arg, ... that would make us want to call it fc_pport_login, and then > to rename fc_rport.c to fc_pport.c ...etc. ... it get's too messy. > > Also, despite the name, fnic is accessing fields in fc_rport_libfc_priv, > to find out whether to do retry, etc., on offloaded ops. > > So, to keep things sane, I'd like to keep the name the same, or maybe > just drop the libfc portion. (fc_rport_priv). Less code changes. > What do you think of fc_rport_libfc, or fc_libfc_rport? I think I like the prior better. It replaces "priv," which doesn't have much meaning to "libfc," which does. Either way it's not a terribly big deal to me and I do prefer fc_rport_priv to the initial alternatives. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
