On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 10:21:07AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> @@ -1738,7 +1738,7 @@ struct file_operations { >> loff_t, size_t, unsigned int); >> int (*clone_file_range)(struct file *, loff_t, struct file *, loff_t, >> u64); >> - s64 (*dedupe_file_range)(struct file *, u64, u64, struct file *, >> + s64 (*dedupe_file_range)(struct file *, loff_t, struct file *, loff_t, >> u64); > > Please name the parameters here ... > > + loff_t (*dedupe_file_range)(struct file *src, loff_t src_off, > + struct file *dst, loff_t dst_off, loff_t len);
It's the convention here. Going against the convention looks odd and has dubious value. Fixing the convention is okay by me, but I'd leave that to some kernelnewbie to worry about. Thanks, Miklos
