Re: [PATCH v3 06/14] f2fs: stop using PG_private

[Zi Yan]

On 10 Sep 2026, at 3:35, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:

> On 9/9/26 19:47, Tal Zussman wrote:
>> On 9/9/26 3:48 PM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>> On 9/8/26 20:20, Tal Zussman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a WIP series of ~30 patches converting much of the remaining page
>>>> users in f2fs (including the below) to folios. Still have to do some
>>>> testing and clean it up, but hoping to send it out in the next couple of
>>>> weeks (in the hopes of eliminating some more folio_compat.c functions by
>>>> next cycle...)
>>>
>>> Indeed best to wait a bit before flooding -mm even more, it's rather a lot at
>>> this point.
>>>
>>> In the context of this series, it would be great if you could review whether the
>>> diff I proposed would get the job done, thanks!
>>>
>>
>> What it changes looks good, but I would go a little further.
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>> There are only two more users of page_private_gcing(), which pass fio->page.
>> Those could easily be converted to folio_test_f2fs_gcing() by passing fio->folio,
>> which is in a union with fio->page. That would let you delete the
>> page_private_##name() implementation in PAGE_PRIVATE_GET_FUNC() as well and just
>> remove the entire family. At that point PAGE_PRIVATE_{GET,SET,CLEAR}_FUNC()
>> could be renamed to something like F2FS_FOLIO_PRIVATE_{GET,SET,CLEAR}_FUNC() and
>> all of this cruft is gone and folio-based, with no more f2fs use of page_private()
>> either.
>>
>> The renaming could be done as a later step, but I would get rid of the accessors
>> as well in one swoop.
>
> Yes, either as part of the same patch or as a separate patch. Zi, can you take
> care of that? Thanks!

OK, I will come up with a patch based on your patch plus the suggestion here
on top of this “f2fs: stop using PG_private”. I will post the patch here
for feedback to avoid extra churn of the whole series.

Best Regards,
Yan, Zi