Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] btrfs: remove btrfs_bio_alloc() helper

[Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>]

On 2021/9/20 20:41, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 06:33:14PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/9/17 20:49, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17.09.21 г. 15:43, David Sterba wrote:
>>>> So should we add another helper that takes the exact number and drop the
>>>> parameter everwhere is 0 so it's just btrfs_io_bio_alloc() with the
>>>> fallback?
>>>
>>> But by adding another helper we just introduce more indirection.
>>>
>>> Actually I'd argue that if 0 is a sane default then BIO_MAX_VECS cannot
>>> be any worse because:
>>>
>>> a) It's a number which is as good as 0
>>> b) It's even named. So this is technically better than a plain 0
>>>
>>
>> Any final call on this?
>>
>> I hope this could be an example for future optional parameters.
>>
>> We have some existing codes using two different inline functions, and
>> both of them call a internal but exported function with "__" prefix.
>>
>> We also have call sites passing all needed parameters just like Nikolay
>> suggested.
> 
> I'm fine with explicitly using BIO_MAX_VECS instead of 0. I'll update it
> in the patch, no need to resend.
> 
Thank you very much.

I'll no longer use this tricky way any more.

Thanks,
Qu