On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 06:41:01PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:46PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > > @@ -239,8 +239,8 @@ void page_cache_ra_unbounded(struct readahead_control *ractl, > > * not worth getting one just for that. > > */ > > read_pages(ractl); > > - ractl->_index++; > > - i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index - 1; > > + ractl->_index += folio_nr_pages(folio); > > + i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index; > > continue; > > } > > > > @@ -252,13 +252,14 @@ void page_cache_ra_unbounded(struct readahead_control *ractl, > > folio_put(folio); > > read_pages(ractl); > > ractl->_index++; > > - i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index - 1; > > + i = ractl->_index + ractl->_nr_pages - index; > > continue; > > } > > You changed index++ in the first hunk, but not the second hunk. Is that > intentional? After having some back and forth with Hannes, I see where the confusion is coming from. I intended this to be a non-functional change that helps with adding min_order support later. As this is a non-functional change, I will move this patch to be at the start of the series as preparation patches before we start adding min_order helpers and support. -- Pankaj
