From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 9F36D289E36 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:37:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751287068; cv=none; b=QoFcpdXzHLRjk6PE3QkRmyAHTdpw3+Eei97g94D6w4fcdIvq9mx26SRujHng8Tzdc4mPP0bBxE5zknU6kFI9liUCk9PgsM6Wv1RCNHOfi33+lSNDIeTSW4RmU541MwD36syXrfY3UZKHc3o7AR8l20awjkqV/yL+nmQKhKsHiCI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751287068; c=relaxed/simple; bh=y7K25BVp8J7PZgB9DNoW9Axq4HVd5q5SbvdBpqqvwns=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CXr0wTQkw5wIFAYsuHdfkARxcKfMduYUclT51lKdnEGQFuUQtsvVlogBVWmNloA+2uz/FAtfZlwn5Y+wOCTzpcP2sdxBq7ptnK5d7b3/6uijRqd90tfiIV1+4rAWZXdgFiV03iZ1XQxaDUcGRS3SIzBTWwWK6VMNWh24104sOHo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=E8fEs2A0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="E8fEs2A0" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1751287065; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Lif262s6lJxXAyUAPG/wOgmzfNhGrKy2Fgpgmtk9rAU=; b=E8fEs2A0gmB3XPTlJUYHyrT4v7NzPcbyJl1zw5E4FxmIT5niJdzP1wCgyK+kBKPOpOl/VT ZFgUF5R9qWAxdRqzW5TArYbXaAkhSmT2xp5zbQo4QyMT9sqjSNL0hH72y9Om/Sqdx6eQ/H lIk+F4gULX9wHuN0eZYb3+Gu1jlNVWU= Received: from mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-558-2IT8sbofOgOldCdVq896fg-1; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:37:41 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 2IT8sbofOgOldCdVq896fg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 2IT8sbofOgOldCdVq896fg_1751287058 Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A8571800287; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (unknown [10.22.64.142]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 668A219560AB; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:37:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:41:13 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Christian Brauner , "Darrick J. Wong" , Joanne Koong , 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: References: <20250627070328.975394-1-hch@lst.de> <20250627070328.975394-2-hch@lst.de> <20250630054407.GC28532@lst.de> 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250630054407.GC28532@lst.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 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. Brian