On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:46 AM Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Now that the buffered write path is using folios, convert
> fuse_do_readpage() to take a folio instead of a page, update it to use
> the appropriate folio helpers, and update the callers to pass in the
> folio directly instead of a page.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/fuse/file.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index 2af9ec67a8e7..45667c40de7a 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -858,12 +858,13 @@ static void fuse_short_read(struct inode *inode, u64 attr_ver, size_t num_read,
> }
> }
>
> -static int fuse_do_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page)
> +static int fuse_do_readfolio(struct file *file, struct folio *folio)
> {
> - struct inode *inode = page->mapping->host;
> + struct inode *inode = folio->mapping->host;
> struct fuse_mount *fm = get_fuse_mount(inode);
> - loff_t pos = page_offset(page);
> + loff_t pos = folio_pos(folio);
> struct fuse_page_desc desc = { .length = PAGE_SIZE };
> + struct page *page = &folio->page;
> struct fuse_io_args ia = {
> .ap.args.page_zeroing = true,
> .ap.args.out_pages = true,
> @@ -875,11 +876,11 @@ static int fuse_do_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page)
> u64 attr_ver;
>
> /*
> - * Page writeback can extend beyond the lifetime of the
> - * page-cache page, so make sure we read a properly synced
> - * page.
> + * With the temporary pages that are used to complete writeback, we can
> + * have writeback that extends beyond the lifetime of the folio. So
> + * make sure we read a properly synced folio.
> */
> - fuse_wait_on_page_writeback(inode, page->index);
> + fuse_wait_on_folio_writeback(inode, folio);
>
> attr_ver = fuse_get_attr_version(fm->fc);
>
> @@ -897,25 +898,24 @@ static int fuse_do_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page)
> if (res < desc.length)
> fuse_short_read(inode, attr_ver, res, &ia.ap);
>
> - SetPageUptodate(page);
> + folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> static int fuse_read_folio(struct file *file, struct folio *folio)
> {
> - struct page *page = &folio->page;
> - struct inode *inode = page->mapping->host;
> + struct inode *inode = folio->mapping->host;
> int err;
>
> err = -EIO;
> if (fuse_is_bad(inode))
> goto out;
>
> - err = fuse_do_readpage(file, page);
> + err = fuse_do_readfolio(file, folio);
> fuse_invalidate_atime(inode);
> out:
> - unlock_page(page);
> + folio_unlock(folio);
> return err;
> }
>
> @@ -2444,7 +2444,7 @@ static int fuse_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
> folio_zero_segment(folio, 0, off);
> goto success;
> }
> - err = fuse_do_readpage(file, &folio->page);
> + err = fuse_do_readfolio(file, folio);
I'm on top of Miklos' for-next tree but I'm seeing this patch unable
to apply cleanly. On the top of the tree, I see the original line as:
err = fuse_do_readpage(file, page);
Is there another patch/patchset this stack is based on top of?
Thanks,
Joanne
> if (err)
> goto cleanup;
> success:
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
