Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Use folio api functions from the already defined src and dst folio
> variables.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/migrate_device.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/migrate_device.c b/mm/migrate_device.c
> index 9152a329b0a68..a48d5cdb28553 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate_device.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate_device.c
> @@ -843,17 +843,17 @@ void migrate_device_finalize(unsigned long *src_pfns,
> remove_migration_ptes(src, dst, false);
> folio_unlock(src);
>
> - if (is_zone_device_page(page))
> - put_page(page);
> + if (folio_is_zone_device(src))
> + folio_put(src);
> else
> - putback_lru_page(page);
> + folio_putback_lru(src);
>
> if (newpage != page) {
> - unlock_page(newpage);
> - if (is_zone_device_page(newpage))
> - put_page(newpage);
Defining migrate_pfn_to_folio() would also allow the removal of the
newpage and page variables entirely which I think would make this
clearer.
As an aside is there any motivation for making these changes other than
as a general cleanup? I ask only because I have been looking at allowing
device pages with order > 0 so have some of these clean-ups in a local
tree as they're a pre-requisite for that.
- Alistair
> + folio_unlock(dst);
> + if (folio_is_zone_device(dst))
> + folio_put(dst);
> else
> - putback_lru_page(newpage);
> + folio_putback_lru(dst);
> }
> }
> }
