Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 05:09:05PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >> +static int iomap_write_delalloc_punch(struct inode *inode, struct folio *folio, >> + loff_t *punch_start_byte, loff_t start_byte, loff_t end_byte, >> + int (*punch)(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length)) > > I can't help but feel that a > > typedef iomap_punch_t(struct inode *, loff_t offset, loff_t length); > > would make all of this easier to read. > Sure. Make sense. >> + /* >> + * Make sure the next punch start is correctly bound to >> + * the end of this data range, not the end of the folio. >> + */ >> + *punch_start_byte = min_t(loff_t, end_byte, >> + folio_next_index(folio) << PAGE_SHIFT); > > *punch_start_byte = min(end_byte, folio_pos(folio) + folio_size(folio)); Current code was also correct only. But I guess this just avoids min_t/loff_t thing. No other reason right? -ritesh
