On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 5:32 PM Kairui Song <ryncsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 5:12 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 02.05.24 10:49, Kairui Song wrote: > > > From: Kairui Song <kasong@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > There are two helpers for retrieving the index within address space > > > for mixed usage of swap cache and page cache: > > > > > > - page_index > > > - folio_index (wrapper of page_index) > > > > > > This commit drops page_index, as we have eliminated all users, and > > > converts folio_index to use folio internally. > > > > The latter does not make sense. folio_index() already is using a folio > > internally. Maybe a leftover from reshuffling/reworking patches? > > Hi, David, > > folio_index calls swapcache_index, and swapcache_index is defined as: > > #define swapcache_index(folio) __page_file_index(&(folio)->page) > > Where it casts the folio to page first, then call __page_file_index, > __page_file_index is a function and works on pages. > > After this commit __page_file_index is converted to > __folio_swap_cache_index. This change is a bit of trivial but we get > rid of the internal page conversion. > > I can simplify the commit message, just say drop page_index to make > the code cleaner, if this is confusing. Ah, you are right folio_index is not a simple wrapper of page_index indeed, that sentence in the commit message doesn't make sense, so it should be deleted, my bad for this leftover.
