From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDE3CDB46E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 05:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229510AbjJLFFd (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2023 01:05:33 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51794 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235228AbjJLFFc (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2023 01:05:32 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD575C0 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 22:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 75AC16732D; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 07:05:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 07:05:27 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, osandov@osandov.com, hch@lst.de Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC v1.0 0/7] xfs: clean up realtime type usage Message-ID: <20231012050527.GJ1637@lst.de> References: <20231011175711.GM21298@frogsfrogsfrogs> <169704720721.1773388.10798471315209727198.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <169704720721.1773388.10798471315209727198.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:01:16AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Hi all, > > The realtime code uses xfs_rtblock_t and xfs_fsblock_t in a lot of > places, and it's very confusing. Clean up all the type usage so that an > xfs_rtblock_t is always a block within the realtime volume, an > xfs_fileoff_t is always a file offset within a realtime metadata file, > and an xfs_rtxnumber_t is always a rt extent within the realtime volume. Question as a follow up: now that we have proper types for all the RT-specific units, what's the point of even keeping xfs_rtblock_t around vs always using xfs_fsblock_t or xfs_rfsblock_t?