Re: [PATCH 3/4] btrfs: convert relocate_one_page() to relocate_one_folio()

[David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 01:43:47PM -0800, Boris Burkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 01:46:39PM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
> > -static int relocate_one_page(struct inode *inode, struct file_ra_state *ra,
> > +static int relocate_one_folio(struct inode *inode, struct file_ra_state *ra,
> >  			     const struct file_extent_cluster *cluster,
> > -			     int *cluster_nr, unsigned long page_index)
> > +			     int *cluster_nr, unsigned long index)
> >  {
> >  	struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = btrfs_sb(inode->i_sb);
> >  	u64 offset = BTRFS_I(inode)->index_cnt;
> >  	const unsigned long last_index = (cluster->end - offset) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >  	gfp_t mask = btrfs_alloc_write_mask(inode->i_mapping);
> > -	struct page *page;
> > -	u64 page_start;
> > -	u64 page_end;
> > +	struct folio *folio;
> > +	u64 start;
> > +	u64 end;
> 
> This patch throws out this function labelling the start/index/end with
> 'page_' which I think was pretty useful given the other starts/ends like
> 'extent_' and 'clamped_'. Namespacing the indices makes the code easier
> to follow, IMO.

With all the other prefixes around I agree that keeping folio_ (as
replacement of page_) would be useful.