On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:37:36 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 10:38:39AM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote: > > > > on 7/19/2023 5:44 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:58:09PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote: > > >> Current client get data from page_ext by adding offset which is auto > > >> generated in page_ext core and expose the data layout design insdie > > >> page_ext core. This series adds a page_ext_data to hide offset from > > >> client. Thanks! > > > > > > Implementers of page_ext_operations are anyway intimately related to > > > page_ext, so I'm not convinced this has any value. > > > > > Hi Mike, thanks for reply. I thinks page_ext_operations can be futher splited > > into public part which used by client to simply register and private part which > > only page_ext core cares and should not be accessed by client directly > > to reduce decoupling. > > It would be easier to justify changes in this series if they were a part of > the refactoring you describe here. > > > This series makes offset to be private which client > > doesn't really care to hide data layout inside page_ext core from client. > > There are some concrete gains I can list for now: > > 1. Future client cound call page_ext_data directly instead of define a > > new function like get_page_owner to get it's data. > > 2. No change to client if layout of page_ext data change. > > These should be a part of the changelog. > I added this to the [0/N]: : Benefits include: : : 1. Future clients can call page_ext_data directly instead of defining : a new function like get_page_owner to get the data. : : 2. There is no change to clients if the layout of page_ext data changes. Mike, what is your position on this patchset now? Thanks.
