Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hfsplus: Convert kmap() to kmap_local_page() in bitmap.c
From:   Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yt7Y6so92vXTOI+Q@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 11:40:29 -0700
Cc:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5834FD23-A333-40B7-9678-43E61986512E@dubeyko.com>
References: <20220724205007.11765-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
 <A2FB0201-8342-481B-A60C-32A2B0494D33@dubeyko.com>
 <Yt7Y6so92vXTOI+Q@casper.infradead.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk


> On Jul 25, 2022, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 10:17:13AM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
>> Looks good. Maybe, it makes sense to combine all kmap() related =
modifications in HFS+ into
>> one patchset?
>=20
> For bisection, I'd think it best to leave them separate?

I am OK with any way. My point that it will be good to have patchset to =
see all modified places together, from logical point of view. Even if we =
have some issue with kmap() change on kmap_local_page(), then, as far as =
I can see, the root of issue should be kmap_local_page() but not HFS+ =
code. Oppositely, if it=E2=80=99s some undiscovered HFS+ issue, then =
again kmap_local_page() changes nothing. But I am OK if it is separate =
patches too.

Thanks,
Slava.=