Thread (16 messages) 16 messages, 5 authors, 2024-09-10

Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] fs, block: refactor enum rw_hint

From: Kanchan Joshi <hidden>
Date: 2024-08-27 05:12:55
Also in: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-nvme, linux-scsi

On 8/26/2024 11:14 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 8/26/24 10:06 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
quoted
Change i_write_hint (in inode), bi_write_hint (in bio) and write_hint
(in request) to use u8 data-type rather than this enum.
That sounds fishy to me. Why to increase the size of this enum? Why to
reduce the ability of the compiler to perform type checking? I think
this needs to be motivated clearly in the patch description.
Since inode/bio/request stopped using this, the __packed annotation did 
not seem to serve much purpose. But sure, I can retain the size/checks 
on the renamed enum (rw_life_hint) too.

Motivation for keeping u8 in inode/bio/request is to represent another 
hint type. This is similar to ioprio where multiple io priority 
classes/values are expressed within an int type.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help