From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 28d15ac8 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 02:10:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D4B7EA35EC; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 12:10:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7258A35C8; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 12:10:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5EF03A35C8; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 12:10:23 +1000 (AEST) Received: from viclamta03p.bpe.bigpond.com (viclamta03p.bpe.bigpond.com [203.38.21.67]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F214A35C7 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 12:10:22 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp.telstra.com ([10.10.26.4]) by viclafep03p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au with ESMTP id <20190109021019.KMGM13620.viclafep03p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au@smtp.telstra.com> for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:10:19 +1100 X-RG-Spam: Unknown X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrfedtgdeghecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfupfevtfgpvffgnffuvfftteenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvufgjkfhffgggtgesthdttddttdervdenucfhrhhomhepffgrvhgvucfjohhrshhfrghllhcuoegurghvvgeshhhorhhsfhgrlhhlrdhorhhgqeenucfkphepuddutddrudeguddrudelfedrvdeffeenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheprghnvghurhhinhdrhhhorhhsfhgrlhhlrdhorhhgpdhinhgvthepuddutddrudeguddrudelfedrvdeffedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeeouggrvhgvsehhohhrshhfrghllhdrohhrgheqpdhrtghpthhtohepoehtuhhhshesthhuhhhsrdhorhhgqeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-RG-VS-CLASS: clean Received: from aneurin.horsfall.org (110.141.193.233) by smtp.telstra.com (9.0.019.26-1) id 5BB3FBB611512BD1 for tuhs@tuhs.org; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:10:19 +1100 Received: from aneurin.horsfall.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aneurin.horsfall.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x092AIIm067367 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:10:18 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from dave@horsfall.org) Received: from localhost (dave@localhost) by aneurin.horsfall.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id x092AIhw067364 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:10:18 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from dave@horsfall.org) X-Authentication-Warning: aneurin.horsfall.org: dave owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:10:18 +1100 (EST) From: Dave Horsfall To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <966501A7-7736-4EB0-841A-C1516C876272@quintile.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (BSF 287 2018-06-16) X-GPG-Public-Key: http://www.horsfall.org/gpgkey.pub X-GPG-Fingerprint: 05B4 FFBC 0218 B438 66E0 587B EF46 7357 EF5E F58B X-Home-Page: http://www.horsfall.org/ X-Witty-Saying: "chmod 666 the_mode_of_the_beast" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 38, Issue 10 X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, Warner Losh wrote: > i understood that this implemented the elevator algorithm, and > possible rotational latency compensation. > > > I know what it does. I want to know why that specific name was selected. Err, because as I replied in a previous message (did you not see it?), it was up to the programmer to implement an optimal strategy to access the sectors, depending upon the device? I'm not being snarky, but it seems like an obvious choice (if not a hint) to me... Let's see, I need a strategy to optimise access, taking into account seek and rotational latency. I know! I'll call it XXstrategy()! For example, I could envisage a disk where the sectors are deliberately not numbered sequentially i.e. they've taken rotational latency into account for you? Out of interest, what would you have called it? XXaccess(), perhaps? -- Dave