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

Darrick J. Wong
2025-07-02T18:18:48Z

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 08:41:13AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> 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.

I'd have gone with iwc or iwbc, but I don't really care that much. :)

Now I'm confused because I've now seen the same patch from joanne and
hch and don't know which one is going forward. Maybe I should just wait
for a combined megaseries...

--D

> Brian
>
>