On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 03:04:33PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Don't you think you might be going off a bit much? I looked over these
> patches after we talked privately, and they looked pretty sensible to
> me...
>
> Yes, we _always_ want more thorough commit messages that properly
> explain the motivations for changes, but in my experience that's the
> thing that takes the longest to learn how to do well as an engineer...
> ease up abit.
>
> > 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.
>
> ^ this is a real point though, DEFINE_READAHEAD_ALIGNED() feels off to
> me.
Thanks Kent. I am going over the patches again and changing it based on
the feedback.
