From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/33] block: add a lower-level bio_add_page interface To: Christoph Hellwig , Andreas Dilger Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20180509074830.16196-1-hch@lst.de> <20180509074830.16196-2-hch@lst.de> <20180509151243.GA1313@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180510064013.GA11422@lst.de> <20180511062903.GA8210@lst.de> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 10:47:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180511062903.GA8210@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: On 5/11/18 12:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 03:49:53PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> Would it make sense to change the bio_add_page() and bio_add_pc_page() >> to use the more common convention instead of continuing the spread of >> this non-standard calling convention? This is doubly problematic since >> "off" and "len" are both unsigned int values so it is easy to get them >> mixed up, and just reordering the bio_add_page() arguments would not >> generate any errors. > > We have more than hundred callers. I don't think we want to create > so much churn just to clean things up a bit without any meaѕurable > benefit. And even if you want to clean it up I'd rather keep it > away from my iomap/xfs buffered I/O series :) Yeah let's not do that, I know someone that always gets really grumpy when changes like that are made. So given that, I think we should retain the argument order for that we already have for __bio_try_merge_page() as well. -- Jens Axboe From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f69.google.com (mail-it0-f69.google.com [209.85.214.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B926B02BD for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 12:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-it0-f69.google.com with SMTP id o189-v6so2528831itc.8 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 72-v6sor542815itz.88.2018.05.15.09.47.19 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 15 May 2018 09:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/33] block: add a lower-level bio_add_page interface References: <20180509074830.16196-1-hch@lst.de> <20180509074830.16196-2-hch@lst.de> <20180509151243.GA1313@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180510064013.GA11422@lst.de> <20180511062903.GA8210@lst.de> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 10:47:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180511062903.GA8210@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Hellwig , Andreas Dilger Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 5/11/18 12:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 03:49:53PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> Would it make sense to change the bio_add_page() and bio_add_pc_page() >> to use the more common convention instead of continuing the spread of >> this non-standard calling convention? This is doubly problematic since >> "off" and "len" are both unsigned int values so it is easy to get them >> mixed up, and just reordering the bio_add_page() arguments would not >> generate any errors. > > We have more than hundred callers. I don't think we want to create > so much churn just to clean things up a bit without any meaN?urable > benefit. And even if you want to clean it up I'd rather keep it > away from my iomap/xfs buffered I/O series :) Yeah let's not do that, I know someone that always gets really grumpy when changes like that are made. So given that, I think we should retain the argument order for that we already have for __bio_try_merge_page() as well. -- Jens Axboe