From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=none Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A1B91BB; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 05:54:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id D308567373; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:54:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:54:02 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ritesh Harjani Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Christian Brauner , "Darrick J. Wong" , Chandan Babu R , Zhang Yi , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] iomap: move the iomap_sector sector calculation out of iomap_add_to_ioend Message-ID: <20231127135402.GA23928@lst.de> References: <20231126124720.1249310-9-hch@lst.de> <87plzvr05y.fsf@doe.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@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: <87plzvr05y.fsf@doe.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 03:24:49PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > > static bool > > -iomap_can_add_to_ioend(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc, loff_t offset, > > - sector_t sector) > > +iomap_can_add_to_ioend(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc, loff_t offset) > > Not sure which style you would like to keep in fs/iomap/. > Should the function name be in the same line as "static bool" or in the next line? > For previous function you made the function name definition in the same > line. Or is the naming style irrelevant for fs/iomap/? The XFS style that iomap start out with has the separate line, and I actually kinda like it. But I think willy convinced us a while ago to move the common line which is the normal kernel style, and most new code seems to use this. And yes, I should probably be consistent and I should change it here as well.