On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 01:51:51PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:12:08PM +0000, 陈涛涛 Taotao Chen wrote:
> > -static int blkdev_write_end(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
> > +static int blkdev_write_end(struct kiocb *iocb, struct address_space *mapping,
> > loff_t pos, unsigned len, unsigned copied, struct folio *folio,
> > void *fsdata)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > - ret = block_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied, folio, fsdata);
> > + ret = block_write_end(iocb->ki_filp, mapping, pos, len, copied, folio, fsdata);
>
> ... huh. I thought block_write_end() had to have the same prototype as
> ->write_end because it was used by some filesystems as the ->write_end.
> I see that's not true (any more?). Maybe I was confused with
> generic_write_end(). Anyway, block_write_end() doesn't use it's file
> argument, and never will, so we can just remove it.
>
> > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -446,10 +446,10 @@ struct address_space_operations {
> >
> > void (*readahead)(struct readahead_control *);
> >
> > - int (*write_begin)(struct file *, struct address_space *mapping,
> > + int (*write_begin)(struct kiocb *, struct address_space *mapping,
> > loff_t pos, unsigned len,
> > struct folio **foliop, void **fsdata);
> > - int (*write_end)(struct file *, struct address_space *mapping,
> > + int (*write_end)(struct kiocb *, struct address_space *mapping,
> > loff_t pos, unsigned len, unsigned copied,
> > struct folio *folio, void *fsdata);
>
> Should we make this a 'const struct kiocb *'? I don't see a need for
> filesystems to be allowed to modify the kiocb in future, but perhaps
> other people have different opinions.
Given I picked up Willy's change I'll wait for a resubmit of this series
on top of vfs-6.17.misc unless I hear otherwise?
