linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/12] writeback: Factor writeback_iter_init() out of write_cache

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZJpmPOEH7rYkETsQ@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 21:31:56 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] writeback: Factor writeback_iter_init() out of
 write_cache_pages()

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 09:30:07PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:35:16PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > +	for (folio = writeback_iter_init(mapping, wbc);
> > +	     folio;
> > +	     folio = writeback_get_next(mapping, wbc)) {
> 
> Ok that's another way to structure it.  Guess I should look over the
> whole series first..

That beeing said.  Given that writeback_iter_init calls 
writeback_get_next anyway,

	writeback_iter_init(mapping, wbc);
	while ((folio = writeback_get_next(mapping, wbc)))

still feels a little easier to follow to be.  No hard feelings either
way, just an observation.