On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 08:57:27AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > And the analogous change in the next patch for zero range (unwritten && > !range_dirty) as well. > > Finally, I'm still working through converting the rest of the ops to use > iomap_iter_advance(), but I was thinking about renaming iter.processed > to iter.status as a final step. Thoughts on a rename in general or on > the actual name? Yeah, having a processed with either a count or status has proven to not be the greatest design ever, and once that is gone picking a better name is a good idea. status sounds fine. The variables tend to be name error or err, maybe that's a little better than status? I don't really care strongly either way.
