On Mon, 03. Mar 08:31, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On 2025/3/3 02:13, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> > My concern was that in 6.1 and 6.6 there is still a pattern at that
> > place, not directly related to 2080ca1ed3e4 ("erofs: tidy up
> > `struct z_erofs_bvec`"):
> >
> > 1. checking ->private against Z_EROFS_PREALLOCATED_PAGE
> > 2. zeroing out ->private if the previous check holds true
> >
> > // 6.1/6.6 fragment
> >
> > if (page->private == Z_EROFS_PREALLOCATED_PAGE) {
> > WRITE_ONCE(pcl->compressed_bvecs[nr].page, page);
> > set_page_private(page, 0);
> > tocache = true;
> > goto out_tocache;
> > }
> >
> > while the upstream patch changed the situation. If it's okay then no
> > remarks from me. Sorry for the noise..
>
> Yeah, yet as I mentioned `set_page_private(page, 0);`
> seems redundant from the codebase, I'm fine with either
> way.
Somehow I've written that mail without seeing your last reply there first.
Now everything is clear.
I'll kindly ask Alexey to send the v2 with minor adjustments to
generally non-minor merge conflict resolutions and the backporter's
comment though.
And again, thanks for clarifying all this.
