On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:44:36AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Ah, ok, my bad. I missed that because the xfs_log_iovec is not the > data buffer - it is specifically just the iovec array that indexes > the data buffer. Everything in the commit message references the > xfs_log_iovec, and makes no mention of the actual logged metadata > that is being stored, and I didn't catch that the submitter was > using xfs_log_iovec to mean something different to what I understand > it to be from looking at the code. That's why I take the time to > explain my reasoning - so that people aren't in any doubt about how > I interpretted the changes and can easily point out where I've gone > wrong. :) And throw in the xfs_log_vec vs xfs_log_iovec naming that keeps confusing me after all these years..
