Re: [PATCH 0/4] remove PDE_DATA()

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:26:12 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >
> > because new instances are sure to turn up during the development cycle.
> >
> > But I can handle that by staging the patch series after linux-next and
> > reminding myself to grep for new PDE_DATA instances prior to
> > upstreaming.
> 
> I'd be happy if you could replace PDE_DATA() with inode->i_private.
> In this case, should I still introduce pde_data() and perform the above
> things to make this series smaller?

I do tend to think that pde_data() would be better than open-coding
inode->i_private everywhere.  More explanatory, easier if we decide to
change it again in the future.