On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:01 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:26:12 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > because new instances are sure to turn up during the development cycle. > > > > > > But I can handle that by staging the patch series after linux-next and > > > reminding myself to grep for new PDE_DATA instances prior to > > > upstreaming. > > > > I'd be happy if you could replace PDE_DATA() with inode->i_private. > > In this case, should I still introduce pde_data() and perform the above > > things to make this series smaller? > > I do tend to think that pde_data() would be better than open-coding > inode->i_private everywhere. More explanatory, easier if we decide to > change it again in the future. > Got it. I'll do that in the next version. Thanks.
