Re: [PATCH 3/6] iomap: Use __set_page_dirty_nobuffers

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 05:28:14PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 08:50:40AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:13:16PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:34:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > Eventually everything around set_page_dirty should be changed to operate
> > > > on folios, and that will be a good time to come up with a sane
> > > > naming scheme without introducing extra churn.
> > > 
> > > The way it currently looks in my tree ...
> > > 
> > > set_page_dirty(page) is a thin wrapper that calls folio_mark_dirty(folio).
> > > folio_mark_dirty() calls a_ops->dirty_folio(mapping, folio) (which
> > > 	returns bool).
> > > __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() becomes filemap_dirty_folio()
> > > __set_page_dirty_buffers() becomes block_dirty_folio()
> > > __set_page_dirty_no_writeback() becomes dirty_folio_no_writeback()
> > > 
> > > Now I look at it, maybe that last should be nowb_dirty_folio().
> > 
> > Not to be a pain, but you are mixing "folio" at the front and back of
> > the api name?  We messed up in the driver core with this for some things
> > (get_device() being one), I would recommend just sticking with one
> > naming scheme now as you are getting to pick what you want to use.
> 
> That is mostly what I'm doing.  eg,
> 
> get_page -> folio_get
> lock_page -> folio_lock
> PageUptodate -> folio_uptodate
> set_page_dirty -> folio_mark_dirty

Nice.

> What I haven't dealt with yet is the naming of the
> address_space_operations.  My thinking with those is that they should
> be verb_folio, since they _aren't_ the functions that get called.
> ie it looks like this:
> 
> folio_mark_dirty()
>   aops->dirty_folio()
>     ext4_dirty_folio()
>       buffer_dirty_folio()
> 
> I actually see the inconsistency here as a good thing -- these are
> implementations of the aop, so foo_verb_folio() means you're doing
> something weird and internal instead of going through the vfs/mm.
> 
> That implies doing things like renaming ->readpage to ->read_folio, but
> if we're changing the API from passing a struct page to a struct folio,
> that can all be done at the same time with no additional disruption.

Ok, as long as there's a reason for the naming scheme, I'm happy as
hopefully it will make sense to others as well.

thanks,

greg k-h