[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180611164806.GA7452@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:48:06 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 00/30] block: support multipage bvec
І think the new naming scheme in this series is a nightmare. It
confuses the heck out of me, and that is despite knowing many bits of
the block layer inside out, and reviewing previous series.
I think we need to take a step back and figure out what names what we
want in the end, and how we get there separately.
For the end result using bio_for_each_page in some form for the per-page
iteration seems like the only sensible idea, as that is what it does.
For the bio-vec iteration I'm fine with either bio_for_each_bvec as that
exactly explains what it does, or bio_for_each_segment to keep the
change at a minimum.
And in terms of how to get there: maybe we need to move all the drivers
and file systems to the new names first before the actual changes to
document all the intent. For that using the bio_for_each_bvec variant
might be benefitial as it allows to seasily see the difference between
old uncovered code and the already converted one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists