On 11.04.19 г. 14:18 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 10/04/2019 16:24, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> The only possible 'private_data' that is passed to this function is >> actually an inode. Make that explicit by changing the signature of the >> call back. No functional changes. > > Can't we change struct extent_io_tree::private_data and > extent_io_tree_init(..., void *private_data) to be an inode as well? > > If I didn't overlook something we always pass in an inode or NULL. You are right, latest refactoring I did made it so. I can send patches atop this series. David, how do you like to organise this? Resend the series with 2 more patches in it or shall I send them as separate once this lands? >
