On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 10:56:59PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:13:49AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > static bool
> > > iomap_ioend_can_merge(struct iomap_ioend *ioend, struct iomap_ioend *next)
> > > {
> > > + size_t size = iomap_ioend_extent_size(ioend);
> > > +
> >
> > The function name is kind of misleading IMO because this may not
> > necessarily reflect "extent size." Maybe something like
> > _ioend_size_aligned() would be more accurate..?
>
> Agreed. What also would be useful is a comment describing the
> function and why io_size is not aligned.
>
Ok, it will be changed in the next version.
> > 1. It kind of feels like a landmine in an area where block alignment is
> > typically expected. I wonder if a rename to something like io_bytes
> > would help at all with that.
>
> Fine with me.
>
While continuing to use io_size may introduce some ambiguity, this can
be adequately addressed through proper documentation. Furthermore,
retaining io_size would minimize code changes. I would like to
confirm whether renaming io_size to io_bytes is truly necessary in
this context.
Thanks,
Long Li
