[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230413160046.77717-1-frank.li@vivo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:00:46 +0800
From: Yangtao Li <frank.li@...o.com>
To: chao@...nel.org
Cc: frank.li@...o.com, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: introduce F2FS_SBI_RW_ATTR macro
> F2FS_RW_ATTR looks more common to me.
My idea is to add macro like this:
F2FS_SBI_GENERAL_RW_ATTR(node_io_flag);
CPRC_INFO_GENERAL_RW_ATTR(ckpt_thread_ioprio);
......
F2FS_SBI_RW_ATTR(umount_discard_timeout, interval_time[UMOUNT_DISCARD_TIMEOUT]);
It seems unnecessary to repeat a bunch of the same things just to add a parameter.
Are there any problems using the new macros?
Thx,
Yangtao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists