Message ID | 20220816175246.42401-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Convert to filemap_get_folios_contig() | expand |
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:52:39AM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: > This patch series replaces find_get_pages_contig() with > filemap_get_folios_contig(). I've run xfstests on btrfs. I've also > tested the ramfs changes. I ran some xfstests on nilfs2, and its > seemingly fine although more testing may be beneficial. > --- > > v2: > - Removed an unused label in nilfs2 > > Vishal Moola (Oracle) (7): > filemap: Add filemap_get_folios_contig() > btrfs: Convert __process_pages_contig() to use > filemap_get_folios_contig() > btrfs: Convert end_compressed_writeback() to use filemap_get_folios() > btrfs: Convert process_page_range() to use filemap_get_folios_contig() > nilfs2: Convert nilfs_find_uncommited_extent() to use > filemap_get_folios_contig() > ramfs: Convert ramfs_nommu_get_unmapped_area() to use > filemap_get_folios_contig() > filemap: Remove find_get_pages_contig() > > fs/btrfs/compression.c | 26 ++++++------ > fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 33 +++++++-------- > fs/btrfs/subpage.c | 2 +- > fs/btrfs/tests/extent-io-tests.c | 31 +++++++------- I've tested the whole branch in my fstest setup, no issues found and did a light review of the code changes, looks ok as well. How do you want get the patches merged? As it's an API conversion I can ack it and let it go via the mm tree. So far there are no conflicts with our btrfs development patches, I assume it'll be a clean merge in the future too. > fs/nilfs2/page.c | 39 ++++++++---------- > fs/ramfs/file-nommu.c | 50 ++++++++++++---------- > include/linux/pagemap.h | 4 +- > mm/filemap.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++------------- > 8 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 122 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.36.1
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 07:26:42PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > I've tested the whole branch in my fstest setup, no issues found and > did a light review of the code changes, looks ok as well. Thanks! > How do you want get the patches merged? As it's an API conversion I can > ack it and let it go via the mm tree. So far there are no conflicts with > our btrfs development patches, I assume it'll be a clean merge in the > future too. I was planning on taking this patch series through the pagecache tree; it's in -next, so any problems will show up as conflicts there.