Re: [PATCH 01/11] iomap: pass more arguments using struct iomap_writepage_ctx

[Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 3:55 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> Add inode and wpc fields to pass the inode and writeback context that
> are needed in the entire writeback call chain, and let the callers
> initialize all fields in the writeback context before calling
> iomap_writepages to simplify the argument passing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Reviewed-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com>

> ---
>  block/fops.c           |  8 +++++--
>  fs/gfs2/aops.c         |  8 +++++--
>  fs/iomap/buffered-io.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c      | 24 +++++++++++++------
>  fs/zonefs/file.c       |  8 +++++--
>  include/linux/iomap.h  |  6 ++---
>  6 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c
> index 1309861d4c2c..3394263d942b 100644
> --- a/block/fops.c
> +++ b/block/fops.c
> @@ -558,9 +558,13 @@ static const struct iomap_writeback_ops blkdev_writeback_ops = {
>  static int blkdev_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
>                 struct writeback_control *wbc)
>  {
> -       struct iomap_writepage_ctx wpc = { };
> +       struct iomap_writepage_ctx wpc = {
> +               .inode          = mapping->host,
> +               .wbc            = wbc,
> +               .ops            = &blkdev_writeback_ops

Would it be worth defining the writeback ops inside the wpc struct as
well instead of having that be in a separate "static const struct
iomap_writeback_ops" definition outside the function? imo it makes it
easier to follow to just have everything listed in one place

> +       };
>
> -       return iomap_writepages(mapping, wbc, &wpc, &blkdev_writeback_ops);
> +       return iomap_writepages(&wpc);
>  }