Robert Love wrote:
> 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.
I think having the module name in the structure name isn't so nice.
I guess it's more descriptive than priv, since it says who it
belongs to ... maybe fcs_rport?
Or, how about fc_login, since it describes the state of the login?
That's what fc_sess was trying to do, I guess. But I think it should
start with fc_rport_ so we don't feel the need to change the name of
the file and all the function names that start with fc_rport. That's why I
called it fc_rport_priv.
One thing that sort of bugs me about this is the use of rdata all over the
place instead of rport, as the variable name that's by convention used for
fc_rport_priv. Maybe the variable name should be rportp or rp.
It's a simple patch to change the name all over the place, and I don't
mind doing that at some point. For now, I'll stick with fc_rport_priv and
rdata.
Thanks,
Joe
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
