Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: clarify folio_set_compound_order() zero support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/8/22 13:58, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
Thanks John, Mike, Matthew, and Muchun for the feedback.

To summarize this discussion and outline the next version of this patch, the changes I'll make include:

1) change the name of folio_set_compound_order() to folio_set_order()
2) change the placement of this function from mm.h to mm/internal.h
3) folio_set_order() will set both _folio_order and _folio_nr_pages and handle the zero order case correctly.
4) remove the comment about hugetlb's specific use for zero orders
5) improve the style of folio_set_order() by removing ifdefs from inside the function to doing

#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
  static inline void folio_set_order(struct folio *folio,
                  unsigned int order)
  {
      VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio), folio);

Sounds good, except for this part: why is a function named
folio_set_order() BUG-ing on a non-large folio? The naming
is still wrong, perhaps?


      folio->_folio_order = order;
          folio->_folio_nr_pages = order ? 1U << order : 0;
}
#else
static inline void folio_set_order(struct folio *folio,
                  unsigned int order)
  {
      VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio), folio);

      folio->_folio_order = order;
}
#endif

Please let me know if I missing something.
Thanks,
Sidhartha Kumar
Thanks,


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux