On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 04:30:18AM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 11:19:17AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 11:39:11AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > > On 7/30/26 08:32, Gregory Price wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 05:48:39PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > > > >> This is potentially useful debugging information and matches the > > > >> existing > > > >> page offset provided. > > > >> > > > >> Use the raw __linear_anon_page_index() function so as to always output > > > >> this > > > >> value regardless of whether the mapping is file-backed or not. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Begs the question whether we should mark the value based on whether > > > > it is file backed or not, but i suppose you can gleen that from the > > > > other printed values (anon_mem, mapping, vm_ops, etc). > > > > > > You mean something anon_pgoff_t or what did you have in mind? > > > > I suspect he means e.g. adding a (A) suffix or something? Like page offset > > xxx > > (F) or yyy (A) I guess? > > > > Yeah just an F/A in the print I suppose. Sorry if that was unclear. > > If it saves someone the head-scratch of whether some bug is because it's > "file" or "true anon", given the ambiguity here, seems like maybe useful > debug information.
Yeah will do on respin I think actually! I do think not providing that could result in some confusion like 'hm I thought this was file-backed'. (We've made our lives hard with varying definitions of 'anon' also... [shmem being 'anon in page cache' is especially lol] so it's already confusing but there we go :) I will add a comment explaining things so if anybody still wonders what's going on they can see what's up in the code. > > ~Gregory -- Cheers, Lorenzo
