On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 02:58:31PM +0200, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> On 9/26/2024 2:16 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:27:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > +static inline unsigned int
> > > +shmem_mapping_size_order(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, size_t size)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned int order = get_order(max_t(size_t, size, PAGE_SIZE));
> >
> > Why introduce the max_t() call here? Did nobody read the documentation
> > or implementation for get_order() before writing this patch?
>
> get_order() result is undefined if the size is 0. I've used max_t() here to
> avoid that case. Perhaps should we prevent that case before getting here?
Surely we've handled a length-0 write before we get here?
> I think one of my earlier attemps was to use fgf_set_order + FGF_GET_ORDER()
> as in iomap. But the solution taken there was to share code between shmem
> and filemap and that wasn't considered a good idea. Shall we just replicate
> iomap_get_folio()? Or else, what do you suggest here?
We could move three of the four lines from fgf_set_order() into a
new function and call it from both fgf_set_order() and shmem?
>
