On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:09:26PM +0000, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:

quoted

For this version, I fixed the TODO that the maximum folio size was not
being honoured.  I made some other changes too like adding const, moving
the location of the constants, checking CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE, and
dropping some of the functions which aren't needed until later patches.
(They can be added in the commits that need them).  Also rebased against
current Linus tree, so MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER no longer needs to be moved).

Thanks for this! So I am currently running my xfstests on the new series
I am planning to send in a day or two based on next-20240523.

I assume this patch is intended to be folded in to the next LBS series?

Right, that was why I numbered it as 5.1 so as to not preempt your v6.

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/pagemap.h b/include/linux/pagemap.h
index 1ed9274a0deb..c6aaceed0de6 100644
--- a/include/linux/pagemap.h
+++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h

@@ -204,13 +204,18 @@ enum mapping_flags {
 	AS_EXITING	= 4, 	/* final truncate in progress */
 	/* writeback related tags are not used */
 	AS_NO_WRITEBACK_TAGS = 5,
-	AS_LARGE_FOLIO_SUPPORT = 6,
-	AS_RELEASE_ALWAYS,	/* Call ->release_folio(), even if no private data */
-	AS_STABLE_WRITES,	/* must wait for writeback before modifying
+	AS_RELEASE_ALWAYS = 6,	/* Call ->release_folio(), even if no private data */
+	AS_STABLE_WRITES = 7,	/* must wait for writeback before modifying
 				   folio contents */
-	AS_UNMOVABLE,		/* The mapping cannot be moved, ever */
+	AS_UNMOVABLE = 8,	/* The mapping cannot be moved, ever */
+	AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN = 16,
+	AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX = 21, /* Bits 16-25 are used for FOLIO_ORDER */
 };
 
+#define AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN_MASK 0x001f0000
+#define AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX_MASK 0x03e00000

As you changed the mapping flag offset, these masks also needs to be
changed accordingly.

That's why I did change them?