Re: [PATCH 04/10] btrfs: split btrfs_submit_data_bio

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

On 2022/5/4 22:08, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 08:38:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> +	struct inode *inode = tree->private_data;
>>
>> I guess we shouldn't use the extent_io_tree for bio->bi_private at all
>> if we're just tring to grab an inode.
>>
>> In fact, for all submit_one_bio() callers, we are handling buffered
>> read/write, thus we can grab inode using
>> bio_first_page_all(bio)->mapping->host.
>>
>> No need for such weird io_tree based dance.
>
> Yes, we can eventully.  Not for this series, though.

Looking forward to the new cleanups on various weird private member usage.
>
>>> -	if (is_data_inode(tree->private_data))
>>> -		btrfs_submit_data_bio(tree->private_data, bio, mirror_num,
>>> -					    compress_type);
>>> +	if (!is_data_inode(tree->private_data))
>>> +		btrfs_submit_metadata_bio(inode, bio, mirror_num);
>>
>> Can we just call btrfs_submit_metadata_bio() and return?
>>
>> Every time I see an "if () else if ()", I can't stop thinking if we have
>> some corner cases not taken into consideration.
>
> I generally agree with you, but for this case I think it is pretty
> simple.  But a few more series down the road these helpers will change
> a bit anyway, so we can revisit it.
>
OK, that sounds good.

Just a little worried about how many series there still are...

Thanks,
Qu