On 2024/2/19 7:30, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:55:51PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote: >> On 2024/2/13 13:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> Wouldn't it make more sense to just move the size manipulation to the >>> write-only code? An untested version of that is below. With this >> >> Sorry for the late reply and thanks for your suggestion, The reason why >> I introduced this new helper iomap_write_end_simple() is I don't want to >> open code __iomap_put_folio() in each caller since corresponding to >> iomap_write_begin(), it's the responsibility for iomap_write_end_*() to >> put and unlock folio, so I'd like to keep it in iomap_write_end_*(). > > Just because we currently put the folio in iomap_write_end_*(), it > doesn't mean we must always do it that way. > >> But I don't feel strongly about it, it's also fine by me to just move >> the size manipulation to the write-only code if you think it's better. > > I agree with Christoph that it's better to move the i_size update > into iomap_write_iter() than it is to implement a separate write_end > function that does not update the i_size. The iter functions already > do work directly on the folio that iomap_write_begin() returns, so > having them drop the folio when everything is done isn't a huge > deal... > Sure, I will revise it as you suggested in my next iteration. Thanks, Yi.
