> On Jan 9, 2019, at 8:08 PM, Yu Zhao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> find_get_pages_range() and find_get_pages_range_tag() already
> correctly increment reference count on head when seeing compound
> page, but they may still use page index from tail. Page index
> from tail is always zero, so these functions don't work on huge
> shmem. This hasn't been a problem because, AFAIK, nobody calls
> these functions on (huge) shmem. Fix them anyway just in case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <[email protected]>
> ---
> mm/filemap.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index 81adec8ee02c..cf5fd773314a 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -1704,7 +1704,7 @@ unsigned find_get_pages_range(struct address_space
> *mapping, pgoff_t *start,
>
> pages[ret] = page;
> if (++ret == nr_pages) {
> - *start = page->index + 1;
> + *start = xas.xa_index + 1;
> goto out;
> }
> continue;
> @@ -1850,7 +1850,7 @@ unsigned find_get_pages_range_tag(struct address_space
> *mapping, pgoff_t *index,
>
> pages[ret] = page;
> if (++ret == nr_pages) {
> - *index = page->index + 1;
> + *index = xas.xa_index + 1;
> goto out;
> }
> continue;
> --
While this works, it seems like this would be more readable for future
maintainers were it to
instead squirrel away the value for *start/*index when ret was zero on the
first iteration through
the loop.
Though xa_index is designed to hold the first index of the entry, it seems
inappropriate to have
these routines deference elements of xas directly; I guess it depends on how
opaque we want to keep
xas and struct xa_state.
Does anyone else have a feeling one way or the other? I could be persuaded
either way.
