Hello, On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 06:23:18AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:44:43AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > The patches look all good to me and I'm not against making things more > > private but can you elaborate on the rationale a bit more? By and large, we > > have never been shy about putting things in the headers if there's *any* > > (perceived) gain to be made from doing so, or even just as a way to pick the > > locations for different things - type defs go on header and so on. Most of > > the inlines and [un]likely's that we have are rather silly with modern > > compilers with global optimizations, so it does make sense to get tidier, > > but if that's the rationale, mentioning that in the commit message, even > > briefly, would be great - ie. it should explain the benefits of adding these > > few accessors to keep the definition private. > > Mostly to help me understand the code :) between all the moving to > and from the css struture it is a bit of a mess, and limiting the scope > that deals with the structures greatly helps with that. Hahaha, yeah, fair enough. I don't see a reason to not apply the patchset given that the code is better organized and easier to follow afterewards. For the series, Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. -- tejun
