[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMjrwgO3pdExIwOI@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 20:04:50 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] iomap: Use __set_page_dirty_nobuffers
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:34:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 06:32:37PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:19:59PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:23:39PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Using __ functions in structures in different modules feels odd to me.
> > > Why not just have iomap_set_page_dirty be a #define to this function now
> > > if you want to do this?
> > >
> > > Or take the __ off of the function name?
> > >
> > > Anyway, logic here is fine, but feels odd.
> >
> > heh, that was how I did it the first time. Then I thought that it was
> > better to follow Christoph's patch:
> >
> > static const struct address_space_operations adfs_aops = {
> > + .set_page_dirty = __set_page_dirty_buffers,
> > (etc)
>
> Eventually everything around set_page_dirty should be changed to operate
> on folios, and that will be a good time to come up with a sane
> naming scheme without introducing extra churn.
Ok, that's fine, I don't normally touch these files, so it's not an
issue for me :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists