On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:25 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 09/12/13 00:16, David Dillow wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >> If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user > >> space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name. However, > >> the SCSI mid-layer already uses that name today to export the queue > >> size. To me this looks like a good reason to use the name "can_queue" ? > >> An example: > >> > >> $ cat /sys/class/scsi_host/host93/can_queue > >> 62 > > > > Yes, I know it has been used before, but I'm torn between not furthering > > a bad naming choice and consistency. Foolish consistency and all that... > > > > I really don't like "can_queue", but I'll not complain if Roland decides > > to take it as-is. > > The merge window has been closed early which means that I'll have to > resend this patch series anyway. How about using the name "queue_size" > instead ?
I'm good with that, but I should be able to make some time to pull it all into a git tree for Roland; this will keep you from having to resubmit. Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
