[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3d9f64a-1661-10c0-0e20-06d91b54bb80@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 17:26:43 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/rmap: convert __page_check_anon_rmap() to folio
On 15.09.23 15:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 06:17:31PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>> @@ -1176,8 +1175,8 @@ static void __page_check_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> */
>> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_anon_vma(folio)->root != vma->anon_vma->root,
>> folio);
>> - VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_to_pgoff(page) != linear_page_index(vma, address),
>> - page);
>> + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_pgoff(folio) != linear_page_index(vma, address),
>> + folio);
>
> No, this is not equivalent. You haven't hit any problems testing it
> because you don't have large anonymous folios.
Right, the address would have to be adjusted as well by the caller.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists