[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegt18KcursBrY23vz8xKst=rbX-g2pU27-9yvfvqf39_Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 19:24:00 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/35] vfs: clean up dedup
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:07:52PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> +ssize_t vfs_dedupe_file_range_one(struct file *src_file, u64 src_pos, u64 len,
>> + struct file *dst_file, u64 dst_pos)
>
> Why u64 instead of loff_t?
Peculiarity of f_op->dedupe_file_range().
I think a cleanup of copyfile/clone/dedupe interfaces would be good.
Perhaps merge them into one? Or just merge copyfile/clone? Even if
not merging it should make sense to make argument types and argument
order the same.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists