Re: [PATCH v6 10/19] fs: Convert mpage_readpages to mpage_readahead

Eric Biggers
2020-02-19T03:55:58Z

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