Re: [PATCH 0/3] Three folio-related btrfs fixes

[David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>]

On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 12:56:29AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 12:38:55AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 07:14:06PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > > All of these were discovered through auditing the (mis)uses of the folio
> > > API throughout the kernel; I haven't been specifically reviewing btrfs,
> > > nor testing.
> > > 
> > > Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) (3):
> > >   Revert "btrfs: fix the file offset calculation inside
> > >     btrfs_decompress_buf2page()"
> > 
> > Why do you do the revert? It does not seem suitable for this case, we
> > use reverts if we want to get back to the original behaviour, or when
> > removing a patch from a long series to avoid a rebase. Merging the first
> > and second patch makes more sense to me.
> 
> The revert is for a patch which was merged into v6.16.  Since the fix
> for page_offset() was merged into v6.15, af566bdaff54 should never have
> been merged, and it can safely be reverted.

That it can be safely/cleanly reverted does not matter, you could say
that about many other patches. If the code was wrong then fix it in a
"forward" manner, no need for revert, namely for code from a year ago.