On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 09:44:38PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Alistair Popple wrote:
> [..]
> > > How does this case happen? I don't think any page would ever enter with
> > > both ->mapping and ->share set, right?
> >
> > Sigh. You're right - it can't. This patch series is getting a litte bit
Alistair Popple wrote:
[..]
> > How does this case happen? I don't think any page would ever enter with
> > both ->mapping and ->share set, right?
>
> Sigh. You're right - it can't. This patch series is getting a litte bit large
> and unweildy with all the prerequisite bugfixes and cleanups. Obvio
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 04:52:34PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Alistair Popple wrote:
> > PAGE_MAPPING_DAX_SHARED is the same as PAGE_MAPPING_ANON.
>
> I think a bit a bit more detail is warranted, how about?
>
> The page ->mapping pointer can have magic values like
> PAGE_MAPPING_DAX_SHARED an
On 10.01.25 07:00, Alistair Popple wrote:
PAGE_MAPPING_DAX_SHARED is the same as PAGE_MAPPING_ANON. This isn't
currently a problem because FS DAX pages are treated
specially. However a future change will make FS DAX pages more like
normal pages, so folio_test_anon() must not return true for a FS
Alistair Popple wrote:
> PAGE_MAPPING_DAX_SHARED is the same as PAGE_MAPPING_ANON.
I think a bit a bit more detail is warranted, how about?
The page ->mapping pointer can have magic values like
PAGE_MAPPING_DAX_SHARED and PAGE_MAPPING_ANON for page owner specific
usage. In fact, PAGE_MAPPING_DAX
PAGE_MAPPING_DAX_SHARED is the same as PAGE_MAPPING_ANON. This isn't
currently a problem because FS DAX pages are treated
specially. However a future change will make FS DAX pages more like
normal pages, so folio_test_anon() must not return true for a FS DAX
page.
We could explicitly test for a FS
