On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 07:26:55PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > +#define DEFINE_READAHEAD_ALIGNED(ractl, f, r, m, i) \
> > + struct readahead_control ractl = { \
> > + .file = f, \
> > + .mapping = m, \
> > + .ra = r, \
> > + ._index = mapping_align_start_index(m, i), \
> > + }
>
> My point was that you didn't need to do any of this.
>
Got it. I probably didn't understand your old comment properly.
> Look, I've tried to give constructive review, but I feel like I'm going
> to have to be blunt. There is no evidence of design or understanding
> in these patches or their commit messages. You don't have a coherent
> message about "These things have to be aligned; these things can be at
> arbitrary alignment". If you have thought about it, it doesn't show.
>
> Maybe you just need to go back over the patches and read them as a series,
> but it feels like "Oh, there's a hole here, patch it; another hole here,
> patch it" without thinking about what's going on and why.
>
> I want to help, but it feels like it'd be easier to do all the work myself
> at this point, and that's not good for me, and it's not good for you.
>
> So, let's start off: Is the index in ractl aligned or not, and why do
> you believe that's the right approach? And review each of the patches
> in this series with the answer to that question in mind because you are
> currently inconsistent.
Thanks for the feedback, and I get your comment about inconsistentency,
especially in the part where we align the index probably in places where
it doesn't even matter. As someone who is a bit new to the inner
workings of the page cache, I was a bit unsure about choosing the right
abstracation to enforce alignment.
I am going through all the patches now based on your feedback and
changing the commit messages to clarify the intent.
--
Pankaj
