Re: [PATCH 2/3] vfs: dedupe: rationalize args

From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] vfs: dedupe: rationalize args
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 13:36:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOssrKf8FLPGWZ9dbT0Tzw4KAkSvUC4ghc_1Wf6-iBob+yQZJA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180507111644.GB18116@bombadil.infradead.org>

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 10:21:07AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> @@ -1738,7 +1738,7 @@ struct file_operations {
>>                       loff_t, size_t, unsigned int);
>>       int (*clone_file_range)(struct file *, loff_t, struct file *, loff_t,
>>                       u64);
>> -     s64 (*dedupe_file_range)(struct file *, u64, u64, struct file *,
>> +     s64 (*dedupe_file_range)(struct file *, loff_t, struct file *, loff_t,
>>                       u64);
>
> Please name the parameters here ...
>
> +       loff_t (*dedupe_file_range)(struct file *src, loff_t src_off,
> +                       struct file *dst, loff_t dst_off, loff_t len);

It's the convention here.  Going against the convention looks odd and
has dubious value.

Fixing the convention is okay by me, but I'd leave that to some
kernelnewbie to worry about.

Thanks,
Miklos