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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B8BC48BE8 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:33:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB8B613F5 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:33:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5FB8B613F5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id EED7A6B0036; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E9DFB6B006C; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:33:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D8CD86B006E; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:33:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0180.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A775E6B0036 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin37.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446C0181AEF07 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:33:19 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78256654518.37.3585F66 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E736801935E for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:33:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=scxudT0Fgrjf5dg2kq1HoLcZSqo+IAeOJSwNAM+VhfI=; b=B9Wch8bEkIKY6dWxYd/dZu00w6 LND/yDN+axubI22bh2wmeWj46Pwyy2+2jnlO7j2t1rx1zZGHy3RL22ZU/0CoZaCaoKk7bmQQ/9wKp i9yv/y5rT5KGQ+fwdLlDdRuqnlGy6Rv5DEMDptVb5wXhFHqSa3faYMrvjW/fYFcTQb7CO+A+35qQZ uq263anRm97B18VVYWIqTVc+amQQ0j9pkJPIRTQuzM5dZArRZ5TRDu+2fhMU5Sf2XYOJJh9NduuXC 1MiBSwLHvPkFgkKDBp3UofDAM4bgv78VlxzNxQ08/VlmQObpEEBE/KciOa494kxdu2hKvlKpVE6iw 6YmEC2cg==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ltCvV-0074fj-Qg; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:32:40 +0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:32:37 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Jan Kara , Al Viro , 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 Message-ID: References: <20210615162342.1669332-1-willy@infradead.org> <20210615162342.1669332-4-willy@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=B9Wch8bE; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Stat-Signature: tnym71m7n9zazefm5w7qwxquhqgn51dc X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5E736801935E X-HE-Tag: 1623778388-556621 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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)