[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2968419.1668606101@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:41:41 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-cachefs@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] fscache,cachefiles: add prepare_ondemand_read() callback
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> > +static enum netfs_io_source cachefiles_do_prepare_read(struct netfs_cache_resources *cres,
> > + loff_t *_start, size_t *_len,
> > + unsigned long *_flags, loff_t i_size)
>
> _start is never changed, so it should be passed by value instead of by
> pointer.
Hmmm. The intention was that the start pointer should be able to be moved
backwards by the cache - but that's not necessary in ->prepare_read() and
->expand_readahead() is provided for that now. So yes, the start pointer
shouldn't get changed at this point.
> I'd also reverse the position of the arguments for _flags and i_size.
> Otherwise, the CPU/compiler have to shuffle things around more in
> cachefiles_prepare_ondemand_read before they call this.
Better to pass the flags in and then ignore them. That way it can tail call,
or just call cachefiles_do_prepare_read() directly from erofs. If you're
going to have a wrapper, then you might be just as well create a
netfs_io_subrequest struct on the stack.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists