On 2/9/26 22:57, Balbir Singh wrote:
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?
Thanks for your reply.
Are we running into this somewhere? This change clearly seems unrelated to the
intent of the
patch that made this change (by me).
We stumbled over its surprise removal while discussing something related.
I thought you removed it because of some ZONE_DEVICE magic; the check
has been proven helpful to catch bugs in the past.
We always document carefully what our patches do, and why; and avoid
doing unrelated things in our patches where possible.
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.
I'll take care of re-adding it if is still useful after the other
->private changes we are planning.
--
Cheers,
David
