Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] mm/memory-failure: simplify put_ref_page()

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2024/6/7 11:28, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2024/6/6 14:46, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > On 2024/6/6 14:32, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> > > Remove unneeded page != NULL check. pfn_to_page() won't return NULL.
> > > No functional change intended.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    mm/memory-failure.c | 6 +-----
> > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> > > index f679b579d45d..2e6038c73119 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> > > @@ -2120,14 +2120,10 @@ static inline unsigned long folio_free_raw_hwp(struct folio *folio, bool flag)
> > >    /* Drop the extra refcount in case we come from madvise() */
> > >    static void put_ref_page(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> >
> > Since all calllers have a valid page，better to pass the page instead of pfn?
>
> Seems not. put_ref_page() called above memory_failure_dev_pagemap() seems don't have a valid page yet.
> Also page might be NULL when calling put_ref_page() in soft_offline_page(). So it should be better to
> still pass pfn. Or am I miss something?

Yes, missing it, please ignore it
> Thanks.
> .