[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230721062423.GA20845@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 08:24:23 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: add CONFIG_BUFFER_HEAD
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:45:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 04:04:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > @@ -400,7 +391,8 @@ static int blkdev_iomap_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length,
> > iomap->type = IOMAP_MAPPED;
> > iomap->addr = iomap->offset;
> > iomap->length = isize - iomap->offset;
> > - iomap->flags |= IOMAP_F_BUFFER_HEAD;
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BUFFER_HEAD))
> > + iomap->flags |= IOMAP_F_BUFFER_HEAD;
>
> Wouldn't it be simpler to do ...
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BUFFER_HEAD
> #define IOMAP_F_BUFFER_HEAD (1U << 4)
> +#else
> +#define IOMAP_F_BUFFER_HEAD 0
> +#endif
>
> in include/linux/iomap.h ?
> ... because this function then goes away.
I guess we could do that. It is less intrusive, but I have to say I find
flags that get defined away to 0 fairly confusing for the reader.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists