Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:56:47 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: move folio_set_compound_order() to mm/internal.h | From | John Hubbard <> |
| |
On 12/16/22 14:27, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:20:53 -0800 Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com> wrote: > >> folio_set_compound_order() is moved to an mm-internal location so external >> folio users cannot misuse this function. Change the name of the function >> to folio_set_order() and use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than BUG_ON. Also, >> handle the case if a non-large folio is passed and add clarifying comments >> to the function. >> > > This differs from the version I previously merged: > > --- a/mm/internal.h~mm-move-folio_set_compound_order-to-mm-internalh-update > +++ a/mm/internal.h > @@ -384,8 +384,10 @@ int split_free_page(struct page *free_pa > */ > static inline void folio_set_order(struct folio *folio, unsigned int order) > { > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_large(folio))) > + if (!folio_test_large(folio)) { > + WARN_ON_ONCE(order); > return; > + }
I think that's out of date?
We eventually settled on the version that is (as of this a few minutes ago) already in mm-unstable (commit fdea060a130d: "mm: move folio_set_compound_order() to mm/internal.h"), which has it like this:
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_large(folio))) return;
> > folio->_folio_order = order; > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT > > Makes sense. But wouldn't > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order && !folio_test_large(folio))) > > be clearer?
That's a little narrower of a check. But maybe that's desirable. Could someone (Mike, Muchun, Sidhartha) comment on which behavior is preferable, please? I think I'm a little dizzy at this point. :)
thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
| |