Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Change the interface of prep_compound_tail()

[Usama Arif]

On 05/12/2025 22:10, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 09:49:36PM +0000, Usama Arif wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/12/2025 19:43, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
>>> Instead of passing down the head page and tail page index, pass the tail
>>> and head pages directly, as well as the order of the compound page.
>>>
>>> This is a preparation for changing how the head position is encoded in
>>> the tail page.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/page-flags.h |  4 +++-
>>>  mm/hugetlb.c               |  8 +++++---
>>>  mm/internal.h              | 11 +++++------
>>>  mm/mm_init.c               |  2 +-
>>>  mm/page_alloc.c            |  2 +-
>>>  5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/page-flags.h b/include/linux/page-flags.h
>>> index 0091ad1986bf..2c1153dd7e0e 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
>>> @@ -865,7 +865,9 @@ static inline bool folio_test_large(const struct folio *folio)
>>>  	return folio_test_head(folio);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static __always_inline void set_compound_head(struct page *page, struct page *head)
>>> +static __always_inline void set_compound_head(struct page *page,
>>> +					      struct page *head,
>>> +					      unsigned int order)
>>
>> I can see that order is used later, I think patch 4, but probably this patch might cause a
>> build warning as order is unused? Might be good to integrate that into the later patch?
> 
> Is there warning for unused function parameters?

ah I havent tried actually building, but I thought unused args would complain. If it doesnt,
should be ok.
> 
> I think it will blow up whole kernel, no?
> 
>> Other nit is, do we want const for head here? (Its not there before, but might be good to add).
> 
> Sure, can do.
>