diff mbox series

iomap: Rename iomap_last_written_block to iomap_first_unchanged_block

Message ID 20250327055706.3668207-1-chizhiling@163.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series iomap: Rename iomap_last_written_block to iomap_first_unchanged_block | expand

Commit Message

Chi Zhiling March 27, 2025, 5:57 a.m. UTC
From: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@kylinos.cn>

This renames iomap_last_written_block() to iomap_first_unchanged_block()
to better reflect its actual behavior of finding the first unmodified
block after partial writes, improving code readability.

Signed-off-by: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@kylinos.cn>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c    | 2 +-
 include/linux/iomap.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Christoph Hellwig March 27, 2025, 10:35 a.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 01:57:06PM +0800, Chi Zhiling wrote:
> From: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@kylinos.cn>
> 
> This renames iomap_last_written_block() to iomap_first_unchanged_block()
> to better reflect its actual behavior of finding the first unmodified
> block after partial writes, improving code readability.

Does it?  I it used in the context of a write operation where uncached
is not exactly well define.  I'm not a native speaker, but I don't see
an improvement here (then again I picked the current name, so I might be
biassed).

> +static inline loff_t iomap_first_unchanged_block(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos,

Either way please avoid the overly long line.
Chi Zhiling March 27, 2025, 11:46 a.m. UTC | #2
On 2025/3/27 18:35, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 01:57:06PM +0800, Chi Zhiling wrote:
>> From: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@kylinos.cn>
>>
>> This renames iomap_last_written_block() to iomap_first_unchanged_block()
>> to better reflect its actual behavior of finding the first unmodified
>> block after partial writes, improving code readability.
> 
> Does it?  I it used in the context of a write operation where uncached
> is not exactly well define.  I'm not a native speaker, but I don't see
> an improvement here (then again I picked the current name, so I might be
> biassed).

Okay, actually 'last_written_block' also makes sense, it's just that it 
returns the end of the last written block, not the beginning


thanks,
Chi Zhiling
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
index 5dd0922fe2d1..d4b0358015ab 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
@@ -1277,7 +1277,7 @@  xfs_buffered_write_iomap_end(
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Nothing to do if we've written the entire delalloc extent */
-	start_byte = iomap_last_written_block(inode, offset, written);
+	start_byte = iomap_first_unchanged_block(inode, offset, written);
 	end_byte = round_up(offset + length, i_blocksize(inode));
 	if (start_byte >= end_byte)
 		return 0;
diff --git a/include/linux/iomap.h b/include/linux/iomap.h
index 2de7a5e7d67d..88d0da23426c 100644
--- a/include/linux/iomap.h
+++ b/include/linux/iomap.h
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@  static inline const struct iomap *iomap_iter_srcmap(const struct iomap_iter *i)
  * If nothing was written, round @pos down to point at the first block in
  * the range, else round up to include the partially written block.
  */
-static inline loff_t iomap_last_written_block(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos,
+static inline loff_t iomap_first_unchanged_block(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos,
 		ssize_t written)
 {
 	if (unlikely(!written))