Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:01:04 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] remove PDE_DATA() |
| |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:26:12 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> wrote:
> > > > because new instances are sure to turn up during the development cycle. > > > > But I can handle that by staging the patch series after linux-next and > > reminding myself to grep for new PDE_DATA instances prior to > > upstreaming. > > I'd be happy if you could replace PDE_DATA() with inode->i_private. > In this case, should I still introduce pde_data() and perform the above > things to make this series smaller?
I do tend to think that pde_data() would be better than open-coding inode->i_private everywhere. More explanatory, easier if we decide to change it again in the future.
| |