On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 08:50:40AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:13:16PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:34:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Eventually everything around set_page_dirty should be changed to operate
> > > on folios, and that will be a good time to come up with a sane
> > > naming scheme without introducing extra churn.
> >
> > The way it currently looks in my tree ...
> >
> > set_page_dirty(page) is a thin wrapper that calls folio_mark_dirty(folio).
> > folio_mark_dirty() calls a_ops->dirty_folio(mapping, folio) (which
> > returns bool).
> > __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() becomes filemap_dirty_folio()
> > __set_page_dirty_buffers() becomes block_dirty_folio()
> > __set_page_dirty_no_writeback() becomes dirty_folio_no_writeback()
> >
> > Now I look at it, maybe that last should be nowb_dirty_folio().
>
> Not to be a pain, but you are mixing "folio" at the front and back of
> the api name? We messed up in the driver core with this for some things
> (get_device() being one), I would recommend just sticking with one
> naming scheme now as you are getting to pick what you want to use.
That is mostly what I'm doing. eg,
get_page -> folio_get
lock_page -> folio_lock
PageUptodate -> folio_uptodate
set_page_dirty -> folio_mark_dirty
What I haven't dealt with yet is the naming of the
address_space_operations. My thinking with those is that they should
be verb_folio, since they _aren't_ the functions that get called.
ie it looks like this:
folio_mark_dirty()
aops->dirty_folio()
ext4_dirty_folio()
buffer_dirty_folio()
I actually see the inconsistency here as a good thing -- these are
implementations of the aop, so foo_verb_folio() means you're doing
something weird and internal instead of going through the vfs/mm.
That implies doing things like renaming ->readpage to ->read_folio, but
if we're changing the API from passing a struct page to a struct folio,
that can all be done at the same time with no additional disruption.
