On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 08:41:13AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 11:12:20AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > I find it slightly annoying that the struct name now implies 'wbc,' > > > which is obviously used by the writeback_control inside it. It would be > > > nice to eventually rename wpc to something more useful, but that's for > > > another patch: > > > > True, but wbc is already taken by the writeback_control structure. > > Maybe I should just drop the renaming for now? > > > > Yeah, that's what makes it confusing IMO. writeback_ctx looks like it > would be wbc, but it's actually wpc and wbc is something internal. But I > dunno.. it's not like the original struct name is great either. > > I was thinking maybe rename the wpc variable name to something like > wbctx (or maybe wbctx and wbctl? *shrug*). Not to say that is elegant by > any stretch, but just to better differentiate from wbc/wpc and make the > code a little easier to read going forward. I don't really have a strong > opinion wrt this series so I don't want to bikeshed too much. Whatever > you want to go with is fine by me. I'd have gone with iwc or iwbc, but I don't really care that much. :) Now I'm confused because I've now seen the same patch from joanne and hch and don't know which one is going forward. Maybe I should just wait for a combined megaseries... --D > Brian > >
