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 6BCA7C49EAB for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 06:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C412619B6 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 06:35:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0C412619B6 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 420378D0027; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3D02E8D0016; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:35:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 298338D0027; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:35:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0192.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.192]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14508D0016 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:35:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6077180AD820 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 06:35:44 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78302171808.05.EC198D4 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AC8C0201EB for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 06:35:44 +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=m8O1gYnNGbTtfvr0xBpn9cMvKiMrqp+DD2LjyIwlVHU=; b=EZ2tqzN0BRMpZbbINUkrW8Sf7L 9i9w/XLGD/NyUslJ3ytbhc1NX1MX95KJkhKFXXjiM4PKvM8MgqN6FTT0MAP8bGhxK/XPIHaeYhMHO WJwKsI+S8PG9nyo19SSxntu5Kdg9FNga8H/PAVlpxQak2OI2b0y87m8lVsLJDtSwF/1ta20O6V64h w8OVMs6oARgEdnsPSUD6imvql8jUynp7iS2z7szNU70zj69lh+8Eo2PRX2a3AEkHUGjrqAQhAhkSx lBem3AVl6AyL+KKqc9UkIYBaaQ5km+kZw9l/hKBrP45VWG6M3pPfBbUPyRVd2+CyJHuCv+KMqDkOV lGJeZdFg==; Received: from hch by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lxkpQ-002f3T-Jn; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 06:33:20 +0000 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:33:08 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Christoph Hellwig , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 24/46] mm/writeback: Add __folio_end_writeback() Message-ID: References: <20210622121551.3398730-1-willy@infradead.org> <20210622121551.3398730-25-willy@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 88AC8C0201EB X-Stat-Signature: tsn5me679j65gshs8yw843aqu8jn1moj Authentication-Results: imf22.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=EZ2tqzN0; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf22.hostedemail.com: domain of BATV@casper.srs.infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=BATV@casper.srs.infradead.org X-HE-Tag: 1624862144-241923 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 Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 07:20:12PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > While this looks good, I think the whole abstraction is wrong. I think > > test_clear_page_writeback should just be merged into it's only caller. > > I'm not opposed to doing that, but something else has to get > un-static'ed in order to make that happen. > > folio_end_writeback (exported, filemap.c) > -> folio_wake (static, filemap.c) > -> folio_wake_bit (static, filemap.c) > -> __folio_end_writeback (non-static, page-writeback.c) > -> __wb_writeout_add (static, page-writeback.c) > > I'm not sure there's an obviously better split than where it is right > now. Ok, let's ignore that whole mess for now. There is plenty bigger fish to fry.