[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZJr/UHDEIbieQOsv@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:25:04 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...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 08/12] writeback: Factor writeback_get_folio() out of
write_cache_pages()
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 09:34:17PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > + for (;;) {
> > + folio = writeback_get_next(mapping, wbc);
> > + if (!folio)
> > + return NULL;
> > + wbc->done_index = folio->index;
> > +
> > + folio_lock(folio);
> > + if (likely(should_writeback_folio(mapping, wbc, folio)))
> > + break;
> > + folio_unlock(folio);
> > + }
> > +
> > + trace_wbc_writepage(wbc, inode_to_bdi(mapping->host));
> > + return folio;
>
> Same minor nitpick, why not:
>
>
> while ((folio = writeback_get_next(mapping, wbc)) {
> wbc->done_index = folio->index;
>
> folio_lock(folio);
> if (likely(should_writeback_folio(mapping, wbc, folio))) {
> trace_wbc_writepage(wbc, inode_to_bdi(mapping->host));
> break;
> }
> folio_unlock(folio);
> }
>
> return folio;
>
> ?
Because we end up having to call writeback_finish() somewhere, and it's
neater to do it here than in either writeback_get_next() or both callers
of writeback_get_folio().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists