On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:06:05AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:12:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > -static int
> > > -__iomap_write_end(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos, unsigned len,
> > > - unsigned copied, struct page *page)
> > > +static size_t __iomap_write_end(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos, size_t len,
> > > + size_t copied, struct page *page)
> > > {
> >
> > Please leave the function declarations formatted the same way as
> > they currently are. They are done that way intentionally so it is
> > easy to grep for function definitions. Not to mention is't much
> > easier to read than when the function name is commingled into the
> > multiline paramener list like...
>
> I understand that's true for XFS, but it's not true throughout the
> rest of the kernel.
What other code does is irrelevant. I'm trying to maintain and
improve the consistency of the format used for the fs/iomap code.
> This file isn't even consistent:
>
> buffered-io.c:static inline struct iomap_page *to_iomap_page(struct page *page)
> buffered-io.c:static inline bool iomap_block_needs_zeroing(struct inode
> buffered-io.c:static int iomap_zero(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos, unsigned offset,
> buffered-io.c:static void iomap_writepage_end_bio(struct bio *bio)
> buffered-io.c:static int __init iomap_init(void)
>
> (i just grepped for ^static so there're other functions not covered by this)
5 functions that have that format, compared to 45 that do have the
formatting I asked you to retain. It think it's pretty clear which
way consistency lies here...
> The other fs/iomap/ files are equally inconsistent.
Inconsistency always occurs when multiple people modify the same
code. Often that's simply because reviewers haven't noticed the
inconsistency - it's certainly not intentional.
Saying "No, I'm going to make the code less consistent because it's
already slightly inconsistent" is, IMO, not a valid response to a
review request to conform to the existing code layout in that file,
especially if it improves the consistency of the code being
modified. That's really not negotiable....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
