From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E161168 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFF3C6101E; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:20:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1628792418; bh=JybdGtheLHN3Mj/Zwakwlx9WQpCJZ2NuJAvWParHJto=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=sFH2rvwIoIIyxoMUpG0SEHMNKtZWT90znpawNzy+LcqrnnvxZyloXVsddWvzunBNe lRLQfbTu5pA3ON6dfVoaAwUtL4wu5CL3YQlGIlcuJ1guXlLKmGjl4mg/YTJZDa9CO2 rCQQ7A/ip6oZM912DmWf8QPms534KD6KUMzPulUlrBvkf2ZbFYuruORMVPpL4soor3 kw3tkhe/17TY17pmISITlT99RBuVV1CkAF/Yu1KYOu4F00/Io8kj763H9E/4Pe9oaH J2nt4EYV091LTCNdXMhE5xEA1r/vmUAMYx/6P3FIwDqkuVkewpcVEI4qjOgUmTpJGY jYYHMyXNRMn+A== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:20:17 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Dan Williams , Matthew Wilcox , Andreas Gruenbacher , Shiyang Ruan , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, cluster-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/30] iomap: add the new iomap_iter model Message-ID: <20210812182017.GX3601466@magnolia> References: <20210809061244.1196573-1-hch@lst.de> <20210809061244.1196573-12-hch@lst.de> <20210811003118.GT3601466@magnolia> <20210811053856.GA1934@lst.de> <20210811191708.GF3601443@magnolia> <20210812064914.GA27145@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210812064914.GA27145@lst.de> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 08:49:14AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:17:08PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > iter.c is also my preference, but in the end I don't care too much. > > > > Ok. My plan for this is to change this patch to add the new iter code > > to apply.c, and change patch 24 to remove iomap_apply. I'll add a patch > > on the end to rename apply.c to iter.c, which will avoid breaking the > > history. > > What history? There is no shared code, so no shared history and. The history of the gluecode that enables us to walk a bunch of extent mappings. In the beginning it was the _apply function, but now in our spectre-weary world, you've switched it to a direct loop to reduce the number of indirect calls in the hot path by 30-50%. As you correctly point out, there's no /code/ shared by the two implementations, but Dave and I would like to preserve the continuity from one to the next. > > I'll send the updated patches as replies to this series to avoid > > spamming the list, since I also have a patchset of bugfixes to send out > > and don't want to overwhelm everyone. > > Just as a clear statement: I think this dance is obsfucation and doesn't > help in any way. But if that's what it takes.. I /would/ appreciate it if you'd rvb (or at least ack) patch 31 so I can get the 5.15 iomap changes finalized next week. Pretty please? :) --D