On 2023/3/4 2:37, SeongJae Park wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 18:26:33 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 16:43:43 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Omit one line by unified folio_put(), and make code more clear.
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/damon/paddr.c | 9 ++++-----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/damon/paddr.c b/mm/damon/paddr.c
index 2ef9db0189ca..6930ebf3667c 100644
--- a/mm/damon/paddr.c
+++ b/mm/damon/paddr.c
@@ -266,17 +266,16 @@ static inline unsigned long damon_pa_mark_accessed_or_deactivate(
if (!folio)
continue;
- if (damos_pa_filter_out(s, folio)) {
- folio_put(folio);
- continue;
- }
+ if (damos_pa_filter_out(s, folio))
+ goto put_folio;
if (mark_accessed)
folio_mark_accessed(folio);
else
folio_deactivate(folio);
- folio_put(folio);
applied += folio_nr_pages(folio);
+put_folio:
+ folio_put(folio);
I think this change is ok, but shouldn't the 'folio_put()' have called before
s/before/after/
'folio_nr_pages()' anyway? If so, could we make the change as a separate fix
first, and then make this change, so that it can be easily applied to relevant
stable kernels?
Yes, seem to previous one.
Thanks,
SJ
}
return applied * PAGE_SIZE;
}
--
2.35.3
