From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] btrfs: rename struct btrfs_io_bio to btrfs_logical_bio
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:04:10 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b49cb262-0239-78eb-8144-523caed28bef@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210915071718.59418-4-wqu@suse.com>
On 15.09.21 г. 10:17, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Previously we have "struct btrfs_bio", which records IO context for
> mirrored IO and RAID56, and "strcut btrfs_io_bio", which records extra
> btrfs specific info for logical bytenr bio.
>
> With "strcut btrfs_bio" renamed to "struct btrfs_io_context", we are
> safe to rename "strcut btrfs_io_bio" to "strcut btrfs_logical_bio" which
> is a more suitable name now.
>
> Although the name, "btrfs_logical_bio", is a little long and name
> "btrfs_bio" can be much shorter, "btrfs_bio" conflicts with previous
> "btrfs_bio" structure and can cause a lot of problems for backports.
>
> Thus here we choose the name "btrfs_logical_bio", which also emphasis
> those bios all work at logical bytenr.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
So thinking a bit more about the renaming we are trading "awkwardness"
for future generations so that we make backporting easier or rather more
fool proof.
What if we backport a patch that does BUILD_BUG_ON predicated on the
size of the btrfs_io_bio. That way if a patch backports cleanly and
automatically but in fact git got confused by btrfs_bio vs btrfs_io_bio
then a build failure would ensue due to mismatched sizes and that would
be a clear indication something has gone wrong so whoever is doing the
backport can go and correct the backport? David what do you think about
this?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-20 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-15 7:17 [PATCH v3 0/3] btrfs: btrfs_bio and btrfs_io_bio rename Qu Wenruo
2021-09-15 7:17 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] btrfs: rename btrfs_bio to btrfs_io_context Qu Wenruo
2021-09-17 11:19 ` David Sterba
2021-09-17 11:24 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-09-17 11:27 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-09-17 11:33 ` David Sterba
2021-09-15 7:17 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] btrfs: remove btrfs_bio_alloc() helper Qu Wenruo
2021-09-17 12:27 ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-09-17 12:33 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-09-17 12:34 ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-09-17 12:43 ` David Sterba
2021-09-17 12:49 ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-09-20 10:33 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-09-20 12:41 ` David Sterba
2021-09-20 12:42 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-09-23 5:57 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-09-15 7:17 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] btrfs: rename struct btrfs_io_bio to btrfs_logical_bio Qu Wenruo
2021-09-17 11:39 ` David Sterba
2021-09-20 7:04 ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2021-09-20 12:23 ` David Sterba
2021-09-20 13:10 ` David Sterba
2021-09-17 11:39 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] btrfs: btrfs_bio and btrfs_io_bio rename David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b49cb262-0239-78eb-8144-523caed28bef@suse.com \
--to=nborisov@suse.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox