From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C689970805; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 22:23:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751494995; cv=none; b=FtUfNUE6GUHOdV/urvKqUuJS1MlIlO8vbzETVcbVOTJiaSSQC1k/kibC0IHAZzzefS2zXBBg5zMKgR1nhdjAf+ukb8kMWHvN2fe8nSEJon9jXsiTIAFusx4ePud50ZlJhB7iGUXT7+1/HCNO07G5UZcxeaK8J23EjQFHms0iQuI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751494995; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LVmaI22NMWk9nHFNJ/A528jljikC5KaEan2NqadkjSg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XYWBgu4ZK42PifNFdb0ZDhqJo/Dt9bs7b5dgYbIOrQ+Axy+SdziqCU6NU/SvS/6vVcfsUUjQLFneQ3ofogHZSW2R2ZUflum76yKOl3u2pmeyrRTu/lI4nkmxLlwYdmv90qh4DD8zSs6c0ONo4CHLl9A5I/BzdEThSBZGpKPwqLw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mx8C1zUs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mx8C1zUs" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BB73C4CEE7; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 22:23:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1751494995; bh=LVmaI22NMWk9nHFNJ/A528jljikC5KaEan2NqadkjSg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mx8C1zUsS1ZWyO8ZpwurYk+HZEZ9ouQ4ugxjMEb0F+Us68GPGF7iqMHer3boyd3Sw a1nvIjNgDsnJR4QIxn5sWTqoJxAhpn39/QF7rAI49MSNPkVq1OYP/VfuoXZKMoffXi 2ihvbZ1s4M6IFD06t+ToXPFa1oX3ywC8PjkNbrESbYa03ZKRQHfNi3LFwqdy1FAEsY SUlgei1ECb2vYcCMSecVu+KnyhH+wvu/iKvyYw2Xg94Vqex3aYRZ6cl51j++QCBSX+ viKdCeHEydawfI4Eq3MsBw+S+0wPdNYxP6shPmrnVpUz3qMtANooHFH6lqAZrtTXa/ +monDaqm4OKCQ== Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:23:14 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Joanne Koong Cc: Brian Foster , Christoph Hellwig , Christian Brauner , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, gfs2@lists.linux.dev, Johannes Thumshirn Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] iomap: pass more arguments using the iomap writeback context Message-ID: <20250702222314.GE9991@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20250627070328.975394-1-hch@lst.de> <20250627070328.975394-2-hch@lst.de> <20250630054407.GC28532@lst.de> <20250702181847.GL10009@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 03:00:42PM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 11:18 AM Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 08:41:13AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 11:12:20AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > I find it slightly annoying that the struct name now implies 'wbc,' > > > > > which is obviously used by the writeback_control inside it. It would be > > > > > nice to eventually rename wpc to something more useful, but that's for > > > > > another patch: > > > > > > > > True, but wbc is already taken by the writeback_control structure. > > > > Maybe I should just drop the renaming for now? > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that's what makes it confusing IMO. writeback_ctx looks like it > > > would be wbc, but it's actually wpc and wbc is something internal. But I > > > dunno.. it's not like the original struct name is great either. > > > > > > I was thinking maybe rename the wpc variable name to something like > > > wbctx (or maybe wbctx and wbctl? *shrug*). Not to say that is elegant by > > > any stretch, but just to better differentiate from wbc/wpc and make the > > > code a little easier to read going forward. I don't really have a strong > > > opinion wrt this series so I don't want to bikeshed too much. Whatever > > > you want to go with is fine by me. > > > > I'd have gone with iwc or iwbc, but I don't really care that much. :) > > > > Now I'm confused because I've now seen the same patch from joanne and > > hch and don't know which one is going forward. Maybe I should just wait > > for a combined megaseries... > > Christoph's is the main source of truth and mine is just pulling his > patches and putting the fuse changes on top of that :) For the v3 fuse > iomap patchset [1], the iomap patches in that were taken verbatim from > his "refactor the iomap writeback code v2" patchset [2]. > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20250624022135.832899-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20250617105514.3393938-1-hch@lst.de/ Well I migrated all my replies to hch's "refactor the iomap writeback code v3" patchset so I guess I'll... wait for whoever makes the next move. ;) --D > > > > --D > > > > > Brian > > > > > > >