Re: [PATCH v4 20/21] iomap: pass iomap_iter_next_fn directly instead of struct iomap_ops

On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 3:33 PM Darrick J. Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.h
> > index cffcec532ea6..d2d3c84d93f9 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.h
> > @@ -53,14 +53,22 @@ int xfs_read_iomap_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> >               loff_t length, unsigned flags, struct iomap *iomap,
> >               struct iomap *srcmap);
> >
> > -extern const struct iomap_ops xfs_buffered_write_iomap_ops;
> > -extern const struct iomap_ops xfs_direct_write_iomap_ops;
> > -extern const struct iomap_ops xfs_zoned_direct_write_iomap_ops;
> > -extern const struct iomap_ops xfs_read_iomap_ops;
> > -extern const struct iomap_ops xfs_seek_iomap_ops;
> > -extern const struct iomap_ops xfs_xattr_iomap_ops;
> > -extern const struct iomap_ops xfs_dax_write_iomap_ops;
> > -extern const struct iomap_ops xfs_atomic_write_cow_iomap_ops;
> > +int xfs_buffered_write_iomap_next(const struct iomap_iter *iter,
> > +             struct iomap *iomap, struct iomap *srcmap);
>
> I wonder, would it make more sense to have a macro to define the forward
> declaration?  e.g.
>
> #define DECLARE_IOMAP_NEXT(name) \
>         int name(...)
>
> DECLARE_IOMAP_NEXT(xfs_buffered_write_iomap_next);
>
> Hm?
>
> Though feel free to say "declaration macros suck!" because they do.
> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <[email protected]>
>

I think this makes sense given that the definitions are generated with
macros. I'll include this change in v5.

Thanks,
Joanne