From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7A5C3402F for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:56:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A33BC24656 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:56:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="cHpc7qeS" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A33BC24656 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48MkR24zLnzDqjg for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:55:58 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=ebiggers@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=cHpc7qeS; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48MkQy5pDxzDqfK for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:55:54 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from sol.localdomain (c-107-3-166-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [107.3.166.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCCEB206DB; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:55:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1582084552; bh=ra63ctCM03qQ/yjMX6m08SRFO6UdUhDwmhqww51jeug=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cHpc7qeSZ/gAs6+Ko/Z9/c8wDmwW8WTd6Y9ysIVgBbEI5SGfvT8WdEDSgJvrnpRtd JfJgLR87X7pDZj1ZfCs4p5yM6PqBSZH+kh5NSfb+dGb2Fgl12LstCggu8oVIaphCC5 XsxYNaY/zixWmZHQTqiVBZLArwLDm8F1awAYyw38= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:55:50 -0800 From: Eric Biggers To: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/19] fs: Convert mpage_readpages to mpage_readahead Message-ID: <20200219035550.GE1075@sol.localdomain> References: <20200217184613.19668-1-willy@infradead.org> <20200217184613.19668-18-willy@infradead.org> <20200219032826.GB1075@sol.localdomain> <20200219034741.GK24185@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200219034741.GK24185@bombadil.infradead.org> X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Junxiao Bi , linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linux-erofs" On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:47:41PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:28:26PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:45:58AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mpage.h b/include/linux/mpage.h > > > index 001f1fcf9836..f4f5e90a6844 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/mpage.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/mpage.h > > > @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ > > > #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK > > > > > > struct writeback_control; > > > +struct readahead_control; > > > > > > -int mpage_readpages(struct address_space *mapping, struct list_head *pages, > > > - unsigned nr_pages, get_block_t get_block); > > > +void mpage_readahead(struct readahead_control *, get_block_t get_block); > > > int mpage_readpage(struct page *page, get_block_t get_block); > > > int mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, > > > struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block); > > > > Can you name the 'struct readahead_control *' parameter? > > What good would that do? I'm sick of seeing 'struct page *page'. > Well, no shit it's a page. Unless there's some actual information to > convey, leave the argument unnamed. It should be a crime to not name > an unsigned long, but not naming the struct address_space pointer is > entirely reasonable. It's the coding style the community has agreed on, so the tools check for. I don't care that much myself; it just appeared like this was a mistake rather than intentional so I thought I'd point it out. - Eric