On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:40:15AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > Wasn't just bcachefs, it affected bcache too, as Coly also reported. Well, I've not seen a good bug report for that, but I'd gladly look at it. > And I wrote > that code originally (and the whole fucking modern bvec iter infrastracture, > mind you) so please don't lecture me on making assumptions on block layer > helpers. Well, most of what we have is really from Ming. Because your original idea was awesome, but the code didn't really fit. Then again I'm not sure why this even matters. I'm also relly not sure why you are getting so personal. > Now yes, I _could_ do a wholesale conversion of seq_buf to printbuf and delete > that code, but doing that job right, to be confident that I'm not introducing > bugs, is going to take more time than I really want to invest right now. I > really don't like to play fast and loose with that stuff. Even of that I'd rather see a very good reason first. seq_bufs have been in the kernel for a while and seem to work fine. If you think there are shortcomings please try to improve it, not replace or duplicate it. Sometimes there might be a good reason to replace exiting code, but it rather have to be a very good reason.
