On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 04:02:20PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > +++ b/mm/filemap.c > @@ -3941,6 +3941,10 @@ bool filemap_release_folio(struct folio *folio, gfp_t gfp) > struct address_space * const mapping = folio->mapping; > > BUG_ON(!folio_test_locked(folio)); > + if ((!mapping || !mapping_release_always(mapping)) > + && !folio_test_private(folio) && > + !folio_test_private_2(folio)) > + return true; Why do you need to test 'mapping' here? Also this is the most inconsistent style ... if ((!mapping || !mapping_release_always(mapping)) && !folio_test_private(folio) && !folio_test_private_2(folio)) works fine, but if you insist on splitting over three lines, then: if ((!mapping || !mapping_release_always(mapping)) && !folio_test_private(folio) && !folio_test_private_2(folio)) > @@ -276,7 +275,7 @@ static long mapping_evict_folio(struct address_space *mapping, > if (folio_ref_count(folio) > > folio_nr_pages(folio) + folio_has_private(folio) + 1) I think this line is incorrect, right? You don't increment the folio refcount just because the folio has private2 set, do you? > return 0; > - if (folio_has_private(folio) && !filemap_release_folio(folio, 0)) > + if (!filemap_release_folio(folio, 0)) > return 0; > > return remove_mapping(mapping, folio); Can we get rid of folio_has_private() / page_has_private() now? -- Linux-cachefs mailing list Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
