Re: code placement for bio / storage layer code

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 06:28:05PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> To me, the old volumes should really only contain the chunk tree related
> code (read, add, delete a chunk), thus it may be better renamed to
> somethings like chunks.c?

I'll leave that question to folks who know that area of code much better.

> Then the storage layer code should be the lower level code mostly
> touching the bio.

For the initial version just doing the move, this would be

 - btrfs_submit_bio
 - btrfs_submit_mirrored_bio
 - btrfs_submit_dev_bio
 - btrfs_clone_write_end_io
 - btrfs_orig_write_end_io
 - btrfs_raid56_end_io
 - btrfs_simple_end_io
 - btrfs_end_bio_work
 - btrfs_end_io_wq
 - btrfs_log_dev_io_error
 - btrfs_bio_clone_partial
 - btrfs_bio_alloc
 - btrfs_bio_init
 - btrfs_bioset_init
 - btrfs_bioset_exit

> BTW, we may also want to extract a lot of code from extent_io.c to that
> new storage layer file.

Yes, this series moves a fair chunk to volumes.c that should go into
the new file instead, and there might be a few more bits.

> But I'm not sure if the bio.c is really the best name.
> What about storage.c?

I'm fine either way with a slight preference for bio.c.