Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:09:22 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, naoya.horiguchi@nec.com, tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ext4: Convert move_extent_per_page() to use folios
Message-ID: <Y3SaskD7QurUVJFr@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20221116021011.54164-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com>
 <20221116021011.54164-2-vishal.moola@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221116021011.54164-2-vishal.moola@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 06:10:08PM -0800, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
>  {
>  	struct inode *orig_inode = file_inode(o_filp);
>  	struct page *pagep[2] = {NULL, NULL};
> +	struct folio *folio[2] = {NULL, NULL};

I have a feeling that mext_page_double_lock() should also be converted
to use folios.  But this makes me nervous:

        int blocks_per_page = PAGE_SIZE >> orig_inode->i_blkbits;

and I'm not sure what will happen if one or both of the orig_page
and donor_page is large -- possibly different sizes of large.

Obviously ext4 doesn't allow large folios today, but it would be good to
get some reasoning about why this isn't laying a trap for later (or at
least assertions that neither folio is large so that there's an obvious
scream instead of silent data corruption).