From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (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 7F65B13B7A3; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 03:59:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783310393; cv=none; b=ALSyrhePOzLZqbxetmIqWgHSu0PEk4SEEgdvOO/vOCjRoB7spu9QdJkVahI+HZkQNFYpQd6nQODKe6Mpls9kjDj80bFNIyFbw4dTjxIgO8CUlCbi0BL8YvYTqf06MIL/gibeBZEoebWV/5n5nB3sQpqavebrOgL3LNAT59QqdjE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783310393; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0yHlcrsyfBalhWb3whVHo4M2Gl29ZEj+sCh6EvDmekI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mp8TFSPoPnY63Q1ZXIS/PJlpBYvjXdQyQAHHx//Msh2LEkx3CsEaUJDhY7zF5MKTVA0KR1pRLPy2Q+5M8rfkqU+JJzjEFXJk2NYRVpHiqX0vQPLnzi3Y4qTny6mI3rL5FsiqllVqDQZzkVXbT71tSySg4t7N8pCjZq72umDGi80= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id A18A868B05; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 05:59:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 05:59:46 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Joanne Koong Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , brauner@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 18/18] Documentation: iomap: update docs to reflect iomap_next model Message-ID: <20260706035946.GC21998@lst.de> References: <20260701000949.1666714-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com> <20260701000949.1666714-19-joannelkoong@gmail.com> <20260702192658.GN9392@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260703020020.GS9392@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260703124331.GA26440@lst.de> <20260703161147.GB9407@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: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 05:34:59PM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 9:11 AM Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 07:00:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > The ->begin method can still set iomap::private and the ->end method can > > > > dispose of it, right? Oh, wait, no, that doesn't work because you're > > > > talking about ->begin/->end passing something to the next ->begin. > > > > > > Should we move ->private from struct iomap to struct iomap_iter? > > > That'll deal with the constness and the fact that private data > > > really is a per-operation thing. > > I'm not sure I understand. Doesn't struct iomap_iter already have a > private field that holds caller-supplied per-operation context? > afaics, the users of iomap->private (gfs2, ntfs3, fuse-dax) do use it > for per-mapping data and release it in the same iteration. True, different uses. > > I dunno -- towards the end of the fuse-iomap development work I actually > > had started using iomap.private to store per-mapping private data. But > > that work is dead now, so that's not a strong argument. > > > > > That also reminds me that now that we actually still keep the low-level > > > begin/end ops we need to switch them to a calling convention that > > > passes the iter instead of the ugly container_of. This is something > > > I wanted deferred until we get the iter conversion, but it turns out > > > that now leaves them untouched.. > > That's a good point. Do you think it'd be better to include those > changes as part of this series or do that as a separate follow-up > series that targets the same merge window timeline as this one? It might make sense to simply use the new signature for the iomap_process callbacks and switch over only once. And never touch the existing begin/end methods in the iomap_ops. >