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;
From:   SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] add folio_headpage() macro
Date:   Fri,  6 Jan 2023 19:45:07 +0000
Message-Id: <20230106194507.152468-1-sj@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y7h0xNGlj0qzFlua@casper.infradead.org>
References: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:21:40 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 05:40:25PM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > The standard idiom for getting head page of a given folio is
> > '&folio->page'.  It is efficient and safe even if the folio is NULL,
> > because the offset of page field in folio is zero.  However, it makes
> > the code not that easy to understand at the first glance, especially the
> > NULL safety.  Also, sometimes people forget the idiom and use
> > 'folio_page(folio, 0)' instead.  To make it easier to read and remember,
> > add a new macro function called 'folio_headpage()' with the NULL case
> > explanation.  Then, replace the 'folio_page(folio, 0)' calls with
> > 'folio_headpage(folio)'.
> 
> No.  Everywhere that uses &folio->page is a place that needs to be fixed.
> It shouldn't have a nice convenience macro.  It should make you mildly
> uncomfortable.

It's true that it's just a mild uncomfortableness.  I will respect your opinion
here.  Thanks for the input.


Thanks,
SJ