On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:41 AM Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 02:59:05AM +0800, Kairui Song wrote: > > folio_index is only needed for mixed usage of page cache and swap > > cache, for pure page cache usage, the caller can just use > > folio->index instead. > > > > It can't be a swap cache folio here. Swap mapping may only call into fs > > through `swap_rw` and that is not supported for f2fs. So just drop it > > and use folio->index instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kas...@tencent.com> > > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org> (maintainer:F2FS FILE SYSTEM) > > Cc: Chao Yu <c...@kernel.org> (maintainer:F2FS FILE SYSTEM) > > Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net (open list:F2FS FILE SYSTEM) > > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kas...@tencent.com> > > Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <wi...@infradead.org> > > > @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ int f2fs_read_inline_data(struct inode *inode, struct > > folio *folio) > > return -EAGAIN; > > } > > > > - if (folio_index(folio)) > > + if (folio->index) > > folio_zero_segment(folio, 0, folio_size(folio)); > > else > > f2fs_do_read_inline_data(folio, ipage); > > This hunk is going to conflict with a pair of patches I sent to f2fs-devel > a few weeks ago. I don't think there's any escaping it, just a heads-up. >
Thanks for the info, this patch is just converting folio_index to folio->index so conflict should be easy to resolve I think? I can do a rebase later if that series is merged first. _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
