On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 10:13:53AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > + int (*writeback_range)(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc, > > + struct folio *folio, u64 pos, unsigned int len, u64 end_pos); > > Why does @pos change from loff_t to u64 here? Are we expecting > filesystems that set FOP_UNSIGNED_OFFSET? It doesn't really change, it matches what iomap_writepage_map_blocks was doing. I guess it simply doesn't fix the existing inconsistency. > > + int (*submit_ioend)(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc, int status); > > Nit: ^^ indenting change here. Yeah, RST formatting is a mess unfortunately. I think the problem is that the exiting code uses 4 space indents. I wonder if that's required by %##% RST? > > + if (wpc->iomap.type != IOMAP_HOLE) > > + *wb_pending = true; > > /me wonders if this should be an outparam of ->writeback_range to signal > that it actually added the folio to the writeback ioend chain? Or maybe > just a boolean in iomap_writepage_ctx that we clear before calling > ->writeback_range and iomap_add_to_ioend can set it as appropriate? What's the benefit of that? A hole pretty clearly signal there is no writeback here. > Should this jump label should be named add_to_ioend or something? We > already mapped the blocks. The same applies to the zoned version of > this function. The newer version already uses a map_blocks helper for both again.
