Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 19 Jun 2022 23:25:31 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] filemap: Correct the conditions for marking a folio
 as accessed
Message-ID: <YrAS2+hjH19LA73A@infradead.org>
References: <20220619151143.1054746-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20220619151143.1054746-2-willy@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220619151143.1054746-2-willy@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 04:11:41PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> +static inline bool pos_same_folio(loff_t pos1, loff_t pos2, struct folio *folio)
>
> +{
> +	unsigned int shift = folio_shift(folio);
> +
> +	return (pos1 >> shift == pos2 >> shift);
> +}

The calling convention with the folio as the last argument seems a bit
odd to me. But then again so does passing just one folio for checking
if something is in the same folio.   But as I can't come up with
something better I'll just deposit these mumblings here insted of
actually complaining.