On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 03:25:40PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > Adding gfp_mask to __ext4_journal_start_sb() make perfect sense. > There doesn't seem much point adding one to __ext4_journal_start(), > we can have ext4_journal_start_with_revoke() call > __ext4_journal_start_sb() directly. > But I cannot see what it doesn't already do that. > i.e. why have the inline __ext4_journal_start() at all? > Is it OK if I don't use that for ext4_journal_start_with_revoke()? Sure. I think the only reason why we have __ext4_journal_start() as an inline function at all was for historical reasons. That is, we modified __ext4_journal_start() so that it took a struct super, and instead of changing all of the macros which called __ext4_journal_start(), we named it to be __ext4_journal_start_sb() and added the inline definition of __ext4_journal_start() to avoid changing all of the existing users of __ext4_journal_start(). So sure, it's fine not to use that for ext4_journal_start_with_revoke(), and we probably should clean up the use of __ext4_journal_start() at some point. That's unrelated to your work, though. Cheers, - Ted
