"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 05:57:48PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 5:24 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 08:48:16PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> > > > Since we're at the nitpicking, I don't find those names very useful, >> > > > either. How about the following instead? >> > > > >> > > > iomap_ifs_alloc -> iomap_folio_state_alloc >> > > > iomap_ifs_free -> iomap_folio_state_free >> > > > iomap_ifs_calc_range -> iomap_folio_state_calc_range >> > > >> > > First of all I think we need to get used to the name "ifs" like how we >> > > were using "iop" earlier. ifs == iomap_folio_state... >> > > >> > > > >> > > > iomap_ifs_is_fully_uptodate -> iomap_folio_is_fully_uptodate >> > > > iomap_ifs_is_block_uptodate -> iomap_block_is_uptodate >> > > > iomap_ifs_is_block_dirty -> iomap_block_is_dirty >> > > > >> > > >> > > ...if you then look above functions with _ifs_ == _iomap_folio_state_ >> > > naming. It will make more sense. >> > >> > Well, it doesn't because it's iomap_iomap_folio_state_is_fully_uptodate. >> >> Exactly. >> >> > I don't think there's any need to namespace this so fully. >> > ifs_is_fully_uptodate() is just fine for a static function, IMO. >> >> I'd be perfectly happy with that kind of naming scheme as well. > > Ugh, /another/ round of renaming. > > to_folio_state (or just folio->private) > > ifs_alloc > ifs_free > ifs_calc_range > > ifs_set_range_uptodate > ifs_is_fully_uptodate > ifs_block_is_uptodate > > ifs_block_is_dirty > ifs_clear_range_dirty > ifs_set_range_dirty > Oops you have put me into a tough spot here. We came back from iop_** functions naming to iomap_iop_** to iomap_ifs_**. Christoph? Is it ok if we go back to ifs_** functions here then? Or do others prefer iomap_folio_state_** namings. instead of ifs_** or iomap_ifs_**? > No more renaming suggestions. I've reached the point where my eyes and > brain have both glazed over from repeated re-reads of this series such > that I don't see the *bugs* anymore. > > Anyone else wanting new naming gets to *send in their own patch*. > Please focus only on finding code defects or friction between iomap and > some other subsystem. Yes, it would be helpful if we uncover any bugs/ or even suggstions for how can we better test this (adding/improving any given test in xfstests). I have been using xfstests mainly on x86 with 1k and Power with 4k "-g auto". I will make sure I run some more configs before sending the next revision. > > Flame away about my aggressive tone, Thanks Darrick. No issues at all. > > ~Your burned out and pissed off maintainer~ > >> Thanks, >> Andreas >> -ritesh
