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.