On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:37:02AM +0800, Li Zetao wrote:
> static struct extent_buffer *get_next_extent_buffer(
> - const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct page *page, u64
> bytenr)
> + const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct folio *folio, u64
> bytenr)
> {
> struct extent_buffer *gang[GANG_LOOKUP_SIZE];
> struct extent_buffer *found = NULL;
> - u64 page_start = page_offset(page);
> - u64 cur = page_start;
> + u64 folio_start = folio_pos(folio);
> + u64 cur = folio_start;
>
> - ASSERT(in_range(bytenr, page_start, PAGE_SIZE));
> + ASSERT(in_range(bytenr, folio_start, PAGE_SIZE));
> lockdep_assert_held(&fs_info->buffer_lock);
>
> - while (cur < page_start + PAGE_SIZE) {
> + while (cur < folio_start + PAGE_SIZE) {
Presumably we want to support large folios in btrfs at some point?
I certainly want to remove CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS soon and that'll
be a bit of a regression for btrfs if it doesn't have large folio
support. So shouldn't we also s/PAGE_SIZE/folio_size(folio)/ ?
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
