Re: [PATCH 01/12] iomap: pass more arguments using the iomap writeback context

Brian Foster
2025-06-30T12:37:46Z

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 11:12:20AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > I find it slightly annoying that the struct name now implies 'wbc,'
> > which is obviously used by the writeback_control inside it. It would be
> > nice to eventually rename wpc to something more useful, but that's for
> > another patch:
>
> True, but wbc is already taken by the writeback_control structure.
> Maybe I should just drop the renaming for now?
>

Yeah, that's what makes it confusing IMO. writeback_ctx looks like it
would be wbc, but it's actually wpc and wbc is something internal. But I
dunno.. it's not like the original struct name is great either.

I was thinking maybe rename the wpc variable name to something like
wbctx (or maybe wbctx and wbctl? *shrug*). Not to say that is elegant by
any stretch, but just to better differentiate from wbc/wpc and make the
code a little easier to read going forward. I don't really have a strong
opinion wrt this series so I don't want to bikeshed too much. Whatever
you want to go with is fine by me.

Brian