From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CFB9C43219 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:52:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244662AbiCNTxO (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2022 15:53:14 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37182 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244842AbiCNTws (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2022 15:52:48 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C18B3EF11 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 12:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDC3210F4; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:50:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1647287437; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vH0aheAlmdFt/mlXQAlDxgQrGNsCxH4LFM/WJJ+/WV8=; b=W/JqpkVoIWsWnAZS+dMqax/CKSGh6MtP12IF/PtmWeaqsppbXW7lziK96q6/28qScHVb0Y 1DmjZhaclHF7SyIuXV7NVlygZiO0oTDuiLCu26S0hfSQwMEjZpc6eLtvbu42CElbGZk31K H4pwzVSKh9HZBO5KQObPr63jSu2C/wQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1647287437; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vH0aheAlmdFt/mlXQAlDxgQrGNsCxH4LFM/WJJ+/WV8=; b=2jquwKnJk0xOOY5NxOpJk+/QWDVXf+/sDlaW4RaoVxVg56+jjKLp6PwctzabHN0OnpcYfH IMuxnaqcQpwBo/DQ== Received: from ds.suse.cz (ds.suse.cz [10.100.12.205]) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AB3A3BA3; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 10065) id 69D62DA7E1; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 20:46:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 20:46:39 +0100 From: David Sterba To: Qu Wenruo Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: scrub: big renaming to address the page and sector difference Message-ID: <20220314194639.GS12643@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo , Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20220310192900.GD12643@twin.jikos.cz> <90dd757a-10ed-2212-6f54-0bd349808dbb@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <90dd757a-10ed-2212-6f54-0bd349808dbb@gmx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org 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.