Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:09:05 +1100
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, tytso@mit.edu, jack@suse.cz,
        adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com,
        darrick.wong@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] ext4: move out iomap field population into
 separate helper
Message-ID: <20191009090903.GA2125@poseidon.bobrowski.net>
References: <cover.1570100361.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <8b4499e47bea3841194850e1b3eeb924d87e69a5.1570100361.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <20191009060255.8055742049@d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
 <20191009070745.GA32281@infradead.org>
 <20191009075018.8BA0A4203F@d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191009075018.8BA0A4203F@d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:20:17PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> On 10/9/19 12:37 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:32:54AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > > We can also get rid of "first_block" argument here.
> > 
> > That would just duplicate filling it out in all callers, so why?
> > 
> 
> What I meant is "first_block" is same as map->m_lblk.
> (unless ext4_map_blocks can change map->m_lblk, which AFAICT, it should
> not).
> So why pass an extra argument when we are already passing 'map'
> structure.
> So we can fill iomap->offset using map->m_lblk in ext4_set_iomap()
> function.

What you're saying makes sense Ritesh and I will update it as such. I
believe what Christoph was actually referring to was what I explained
to Jan to the email that I just sent out. This was around the possible
code duplication and having some iomap value setting related logic
outside ext4_set_iomap(), when in fact there's no real reason why it
can't be inside.

--<M>--