On 2/10/26 03:00, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>
>> index 8c95a658b3ec..022b0729f826 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -3463,15 +3463,6 @@ static void __split_folio_to_order(struct folio
>> *folio, int old_order,
>> new_folio->mapping = folio->mapping;
>> new_folio->index = folio->index + i;
>> - /*
>> - * page->private should not be set in tail pages. Fix up and warn
>> once
>> - * if private is unexpectedly set.
>> - */
>> - if (unlikely(new_folio->private)) {
>> - VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(true, new_head);
>> - new_folio->private = NULL;
>> - }
>> -
>
> Balbir, why did you drop this check?
>
Are we running into this somewhere? This change clearly seems unrelated to the
intent of the
patch that made this change (by me). I was seeing new_folio->private as NULL
everywhere during
my testing and so I removed the check, happy to bring this defensive test back.
Balbir
