On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 03:25:40PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:

Adding gfp_mask to __ext4_journal_start_sb() make perfect sense.
There doesn't seem much point adding one to __ext4_journal_start(),
we can have ext4_journal_start_with_revoke() call
__ext4_journal_start_sb() directly.
But I cannot see what it doesn't already do that.
i.e. why have the inline __ext4_journal_start() at all?
Is it OK if I don't use that for ext4_journal_start_with_revoke()?

Sure.  I think the only reason why we have __ext4_journal_start() as
an inline function at all was for historical reasons.  That is, we
modified __ext4_journal_start() so that it took a struct super, and
instead of changing all of the macros which called
__ext4_journal_start(), we named it to be __ext4_journal_start_sb()
and added the inline definition of __ext4_journal_start() to avoid
changing all of the existing users of __ext4_journal_start().

So sure, it's fine not to use that for
ext4_journal_start_with_revoke(), and we probably should clean up the
use of __ext4_journal_start() at some point.  That's unrelated to your
work, though.

Cheers,

					- Ted