From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs.h: introduce functions to get/set file->private_data Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:58:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20100817175851.GA11463@merkur.ravnborg.org> References: <201008161137.53187.hartleys@visionengravers.com> <20100816231753.GA16546@infradead.org> <0D753D10438DA54287A00B0270842697643E50D82E@AUSP01VMBX24.collaborationhost.net> <1282002601.6518.116.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20100817010355.GG21182@thunk.org> <20100817085428.GA25330@infradead.org> <1282065973.24541.106.camel@Joe-Laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Ted Ts'o , H Hartley Sweeten , Linux Kernel , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "matthew@wil.cx" To: Joe Perches Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1282065973.24541.106.camel@Joe-Laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:26:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 04:54 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:03:55PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > > And spatch could also be used to rename private_data to f_private_data > > > if people really cared.... > > Agreed, that's much better than adding useless accessors. > > Against Linus' current, it's ~850KB. > Anyone really want it? This clearly shows how big the effort would be to introduce access functions. And if the only gain is grepability then such a cleanup patch is far more convinient. It takes minimum effort to create and test, and if you can get ack from Ted and/or Christoph there is a good chance Linus would take it right before/after -rc1. You obviously need to convince him that the patch has seen decent build testing. Sam