[v1] mm: remove nth_page()

[PATCH v1 15/36] fs: hugetlbfs: remove nth_page() usage within folio in adjust_range_hwpoison()

Posted by David Hildenbrand 1 month ago

The nth_page() is not really required anymore, so let's remove it.
While at it, cleanup and simplify the code a bit.

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
 fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index 34d496a2b7de6..c5a46d10afaa0 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static size_t adjust_range_hwpoison(struct folio *folio, size_t offset,
 			break;
 		offset += n;
 		if (offset == PAGE_SIZE) {
-			page = nth_page(page, 1);
+			page++;
 			offset = 0;
 		}
 	}
-- 
2.50.1

Re: [PATCH v1 15/36] fs: hugetlbfs: remove nth_page() usage within folio in adjust_range_hwpoison()

Posted by Lorenzo Stoakes 1 month ago

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 12:01:19AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> The nth_page() is not really required anymore, so let's remove it.
> While at it, cleanup and simplify the code a bit.

Hm Not sure which bit is the cleanup? Was there meant to be more here or?

>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

LGTM, so:

Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>

> ---
>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> index 34d496a2b7de6..c5a46d10afaa0 100644
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static size_t adjust_range_hwpoison(struct folio *folio, size_t offset,
>  			break;
>  		offset += n;
>  		if (offset == PAGE_SIZE) {
> -			page = nth_page(page, 1);
> +			page++;

LOL at that diff. Great!

>  			offset = 0;
>  		}
>  	}
> --
> 2.50.1
>

Re: [PATCH v1 15/36] fs: hugetlbfs: remove nth_page() usage within folio in adjust_range_hwpoison()

Posted by David Hildenbrand 1 month ago

On 28.08.25 17:45, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 12:01:19AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> The nth_page() is not really required anymore, so let's remove it.
>> While at it, cleanup and simplify the code a bit.
> 
> Hm Not sure which bit is the cleanup? Was there meant to be more here or?

Thanks, leftover from the pre-split of this patch!

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v1 15/36] fs: hugetlbfs: remove nth_page() usage within folio in adjust_range_hwpoison()

Posted by Lorenzo Stoakes 1 month ago

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 02:02:02PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 28.08.25 17:45, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 12:01:19AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > The nth_page() is not really required anymore, so let's remove it.
> > > While at it, cleanup and simplify the code a bit.
> >
> > Hm Not sure which bit is the cleanup? Was there meant to be more here or?
>
> Thanks, leftover from the pre-split of this patch!

Thanks! :)

(Am replying even on 'not really needing a reply' like this so I know which
stuff I replied to :P)

>
> --
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb
>
>

Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v1 15/36] hugetlbfs: remove nth_page() usage within folio in adjust_range_hwpoison()

Posted by Zi Yan 1 month ago

On 27 Aug 2025, at 18:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:

> The nth_page() is not really required anymore, so let's remove it.
> While at it, cleanup and simplify the code a bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>

LGTM. Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>

--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi