On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 20:45:58 +0100 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Some of the static checkers get confused by extracting the page from
> the folio and referring to fields in the first tail page. Adding these
> fields to struct folio lets us avoid doing that. It has the risk that
> people will refer to those fields without checking that the folio is
> actually a large folio, so prefix them with underscores and document
> the preferred function to use instead.
>
Huh. Silly checkers.
Which one(s)?
> @@ -282,9 +289,17 @@ struct folio {
> };
> struct page page;
> };
> + unsigned long _flags_1;
> + unsigned long __head;
> + unsigned char _folio_dtor;
> + unsigned char _folio_order;
> + atomic_t _total_mapcount;
> + atomic_t _pincount;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> + unsigned int _folio_nr_pages;
> +#endif
> };
Do we really want to muck things up like this? Can it at least be
declared temporary until the checker(s?) are fixed?
