Re: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: scrub: big renaming to address the page and sector difference

[David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 07:26:12AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2022/3/11 03:29, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:09:35PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> >From the ancient day, btrfs doesn't support sectorsize < PAGE_SIZE, thus
> >> a lot of the old code consider one page == one sector, not only the
> >> behavior, but also the naming.
> >>
> >> This is no longer true after v5.16 since we have subpage support.
> >>
> >> One of the worst location is scrub, we have tons of things named like
> >> scrub_page, scrub_block::pagev, scrub_bio::pagev.
> >>
> >> Even scrub for subpage is supported, the naming is not touched yet.
> >>
> >> This patchset will first do the rename, providing the basis for later
> >> scrub enhancement for subpage.
> >>
> >> This patchset should not bring any behavior change.
> >>
> >> Qu Wenruo (3):
> >>    btrfs: scrub: rename members related to scrub_block::pagev
> >>    btrfs: scrub: rename scrub_page to scrub_sector
> >>    btrfs: scrub: rename scrub_bio::pagev and related members
> >
> > This conflicts with the scrub refactoring, but applies cleanly on
> > misc-next. I think the rename could go in first as it's a less risky
> > change and any fixups or fine tuning of the refactoring would not affect
> > it.
> 
> No problem, since it applies cleanly, I don't need to send a refreshed
> version, right?
> 
> I'll re-arrange all the scrub related patches in my local branch, the
> planned sequence would be (also the future submission sequence):
> 
> 1. Rename
> 
> 2. Entrance refactor
> 
> 3. Subpage optimization
> 
> Would that look OK for you?

Yeah that should work, thanks.