Re: [PATCH 03/18] libosd: OSDv1 Headers

[Boaz Harrosh]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue,  4 Nov 2008 18:44:06 +0200
> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Headers only patch.
>>
>> osd_protocol.h
>> 	Contains a C-fied definition of the T10 OSD standard
>> osd_types.h
>> 	Contains CPU order common used types
>> osd_initiator.h
>> 	API definition of the osd_initiator library
>> osd_sec.h
>> 	Contains High level API for the security manager.
>>
>> [Note that checkpatch spews errors on things that are valid in this context
>> and will not be fixed]
>>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/include/scsi/osd_initiator.h
> 
> This header uses quite a few things without including the header files
> which define them.  That's a bit risky - it causes compile breakage
> across architectures, across config changes and across time.
> 

It's OK. I'm very pedantic about these things.

The first header included at osd_initiator.c is this header precisely
for the check JÃrn has suggested. What happens is that all the types
in osd_initiator.h are actually derived from osd_protocol.h below.
osd_protocol.h does include exactly what it needs. (Also checked)

The only new definitions used by this header are from linux/blkdev.h
hence included here.

(I will re-check that osd_protocol.h is self-sustained) 

>> @@ -0,0 +1,332 @@
>> +/*
>> + * osd_initiator.h - OSD initiator API definition
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2008 Panasas Inc.  All rights reserved.
>> + *
>> + * Authors:
>> + *   Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> + *   Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
>> + *
>> + */
>> +#ifndef __OSD_INITIATOR_H__
>> +#define __OSD_INITIATOR_H__
>> +
>> +#include <linux/blkdev.h>
>> +
>> +#include "osd_protocol.h"
>> +#include "osd_types.h"
>> +
>> +/* Note: "NI" in comments below means "Not Implemented yet" */
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Object-based Storage Device.
>> + * This object represents an OSD device.
>> + * It is not a full linux device in any way. It is only
>> + * a place to hang resources associated with a Linux
>> + * request Q and some default properties.
>> + */
>> +struct osd_dev {
>> +	struct scsi_device *scsi_dev;
> 
> scsi_device
> 
>> +	unsigned def_timeout;
>> +};
>> +
>> +void osd_dev_init(struct osd_dev *, struct scsi_device *scsi_dev);
>> +void osd_dev_fini(struct osd_dev *);
>> +
>> +struct osd_request;
>> +typedef void (osd_req_done_fn)(struct osd_request *, void *);
>> +
>> +struct osd_request {
>> +	struct osd_cdb cdb;
>> +	struct osd_data_out_integrity_info out_data_integ;
>> +	struct osd_data_in_integrity_info in_data_integ;
>> +
>> +	struct osd_dev *osd_dev;
>> +	struct request *request;
>> +
>> +	struct _osd_req_data_segment {
>> +		void *buff;
>> +		unsigned alloc_size; /* 0 here means not allocated by us */
>> +		unsigned total_bytes;
>> +	} set_attr, enc_get_attr, get_attr;
>> +
>> +	struct _osd_io_info {
>> +		struct bio *bio;
>> +		u64 total_bytes;
> 
> u64(!)
> 

Do you mean that I need to use __u64? or what do you mean?

I will change it. but just for curiosity, I have seen this mentioned
once before, but never understood. What's wrong with the uXX types?
I include linux/types.h and I get them as well as the __uXX set.
Why are we not suppose to use them? And if we are not, then why do
they exist? And also why the u8 is used everywhere but the u{16-64}
are not?

(Please for give me for attacking so strongly I just personally like
 them, style wise. I'm just sad to see them go ;) )

>> +		struct request *req;
>> +		struct _osd_req_data_segment *last_seg;
>> +		u8 *pad_buff;
>> +	} out, in;
>> +
>> +	gfp_t alloc_flags;
> 
> gfp_t
> 

I prefer my name. I've seen the gfp_t use in Kernel, but I needed
that name while thinking the code. But now it's OK I'll change it.
 
>> +	unsigned timeout;
>> +	unsigned retries;
>> +	u8 sense[OSD_MAX_SENSE_LEN];
>> +	enum osd_attributes_mode attributes_mode;
>> +
>> +	osd_req_done_fn *async_done;
>> +	void *async_private;
>> +	int async_error;
>> +};
> 
> etc, etc, etc.   Please review all that.
> 

You mean the uXX => __uXX? I'll change all that.

>> +struct osd_request *osd_start_request(struct osd_dev *, gfp_t gfp);
>> +int osd_finalize_request(struct osd_request *or,
>> +	u8 options, const void *cap, const u8 *cap_key);
>> +void osd_req_set_master_seed_xchg(struct osd_request *, ...);/* NI */
>> +void osd_req_set_master_key(struct osd_request *, ...);/* NI */
>> +void osd_req_format(struct osd_request *, u64 tot_capacity);
>> +int osd_req_list_dev_partitions(struct osd_request *,
>> +	osd_id initial_id, struct osd_obj_id_list *list, unsigned nelem);
> 
> hm.  It appears that someone made the decision to omit the name from
> the `struct osd_request *' parameter in the prototypes and to include
> the argument names for all other arguments.
> 
> Not a bad idea, really.
> 

It's a programing style thing. The "this" parameter name is dropped
for been obvious and redundant. I like to keep the Header files
most readable and self-documenting. I know that in C, the style is
to look at .c files for answers, but I borrowed the C++ way of
making it as easy as possible on the user and summarizing all exported
types and services at the header file. Not just for the sake of the compiler
but also for the reader.

Note that I put the kernel-doc comments in the header and not in the
source file.

Thank you for your comments
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/