Re: [PATCH 01/33] block: add a lower-level bio_add_page interface

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/11/18 12:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 03:49:53PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> Would it make sense to change the bio_add_page() and bio_add_pc_page()
>> to use the more common convention instead of continuing the spread of
>> this non-standard calling convention?  This is doubly problematic since
>> "off" and "len" are both unsigned int values so it is easy to get them
>> mixed up, and just reordering the bio_add_page() arguments would not
>> generate any errors.
> 
> We have more than hundred callers.  I don't think we want to create
> so much churn just to clean things up a bit without any meaѕurable
> benefit.  And even if you want to clean it up I'd rather keep it
> away from my iomap/xfs buffered I/O series :)

Yeah let's not do that, I know someone that always gets really grumpy
when changes like that are made. So given that, I think we should retain
the argument order for that we already have for __bio_try_merge_page()
as well.

-- 
Jens Axboe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux