Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 04:15:31PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> Note that to_iomap_page() does folio_test_private() followed by
>> folio_get_private(), which doesn't really make sense in places where
>> we know that iop is defined. Maybe we want to split that up.
>
> The plan is to retire the folio private flag entirely. I just haven't
> got round to cleaning up iomap yet. For folios which we know to be
> file-backed, we can just test whether folio->private is NULL or not.
>
> So I'd do this as:
>
> - struct iomap_page *iop = to_iomap_page(folio);
> + struct iomap_page *iop = folio->private;
>
> and not even use folio_get_private() or to_iomap_page() any more.
>
In that case, shouldn't we just modify to_iomap_page(folio) function
to just return folio_get_private(folio) or folio->private ?
>> > + unsigned int first_blk = off >> inode->i_blkbits;
>> > + unsigned int last_blk = (off + len - 1) >> inode->i_blkbits;
>> > + unsigned int nr_blks = last_blk - first_blk + 1;
>> > + unsigned long flags;
>> > +
>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&iop->state_lock, flags);
>> > + bitmap_set(iop->state, first_blk, nr_blks);
>> > + if (iop_test_full_uptodate(folio))
>> > + folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
>> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iop->state_lock, flags);
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static void iomap_iop_set_range_uptodate(struct inode *inode,
>> > + struct folio *folio, size_t off, size_t len)
>> > +{
>> > + struct iomap_page *iop = to_iomap_page(folio);
>> > +
>> > + if (iop)
>> > + iop_set_range_uptodate(inode, folio, off, len);
>> > + else
>> > + folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
>> > +}
>>
>> This patch passes the inode into iomap_iop_set_range_uptodate() and
>> removes the iop argument. Can this be done in a separate patch,
>> please?
>>
>> We have a few places like the above, where we look up the iop without
>> using it. Would a function like folio_has_iop() make more sense?
>
> I think this is all a symptom of the unnecessary splitting of
> iomap_iop_set_range_uptodate and iop_set_range_uptodate.
Thanks for the review. The problem in not splitting this would be a lot
of variable initialization for !iop case as well.
Hence in one of the previous versions it was discussed that splitting it
into a helper routine for iop case would be a better approach.
-ritesh
