On 1/9/22 20:23, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
This is the folio equivalent of compound_pincount_ptr().
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/mm_types.h | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h
index 60e4595eaf63..34c7114ea9e9 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
@@ -312,6 +312,12 @@ static inline atomic_t *compound_mapcount_ptr(struct page *page)
return &page[1].compound_mapcount;
}
+static inline atomic_t *folio_pincount_ptr(struct folio *folio)
+{
+ struct page *tail = &folio->page + 1;
+ return &tail->compound_pincount;
+}
+
Should we make this code (the various folio map/pin count inline
functions) more uniform? I see that you prefer "+1" over page[1], sure,
but having a mix seems like it's trying to call out a difference for
which the reader would search in vain. :)
After the whole series is applied, this area ends up with a 50/50 mix of the
two.
Or am I overlooking something, and they really *should* look different?
Just a very minor point, so either way,
Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
static inline atomic_t *compound_pincount_ptr(struct page *page)
{
return &page[1].compound_pincount;
