Re: [PATCH 3/6] iomap: Use __set_page_dirty_nobuffers

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] iomap: Use __set_page_dirty_nobuffers
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:34:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210615173453.GA2849@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YMjkNd0zapLcooNB@casper.infradead.org>

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 06:32:37PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:19:59PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:23:39PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > Using __ functions in structures in different modules feels odd to me.
> > Why not just have iomap_set_page_dirty be a #define to this function now
> > if you want to do this?
> > 
> > Or take the __ off of the function name?
> > 
> > Anyway, logic here is fine, but feels odd.
> 
> heh, that was how I did it the first time.  Then I thought that it was
> better to follow Christoph's patch:
> 
>  static const struct address_space_operations adfs_aops = {
> +       .set_page_dirty = __set_page_dirty_buffers,
> (etc)

Eventually everything around set_page_dirty should be changed to operate
on folios, and that will be a good time to come up with a sane
naming scheme without introducing extra churn.