Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] page to folio conversion

From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] page to folio conversion
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:17:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240326151712.GS14596@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240129080442.GV31555@twin.jikos.cz>

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:04:42AM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 01:28:04PM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
> > 
> > These patches transform some page usage to folio. All references and data
> > of page/folio is within the scope of the function changed.
> > 
> > Changes since v1:
> > Review comments - 
> >   * Added WARN_ON(folio_order(folio)) to ensure future development knows
> >     this code assumes folio_size(folio) == PAGE_SIZE
> >   * namespace restoration: prefix variable names with folio_
> >   * Line adjustments
> > 
> > Goldwyn Rodrigues (3):
> >   btrfs: page to folio conversion: prealloc_file_extent_cluster()
> >   btrfs: convert relocate_one_page() to relocate_one_folio()
> >   btrfs: page to folio conversion in put_file_data()
> 
> The conversion looks straightforward like we've been doing elsewhere,
> however the CI is still not in a shape to validate arm + subpage, I've
> seen the hosts not pass with various sets of patches (removed potential
> breakage and keeping potential fixes).
> 
> There are more folio conversions coming so I'd like to get them all in
> so we can switch to the big folios eventually but without the CI
> verification of subpage it's a bit risky.

The patches have been in my misc-next (and in linux-next), no problems
reported so far. The extent buffer problems have been fixed so folios
can changes can be added again. As this patches is 2 months old I've
moved it to for-next with some code style fixups and changelog updates.