Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] hugetlb: use page.private for hugetlb specific page flags

Mike Kravetz
2021-01-20T18:42:13Z

On 1/20/21 1:30 AM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 05:30:45PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> + * Macros to create test, set and clear function definitions for
>> + * hugetlb specific page flags.
>> + */
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
>> +#define TESTHPAGEFLAG(uname, flname) \
>> +static inline int HPage##uname(struct page *page) \
>> + { BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof_field(struct page, private) * \
>> + BITS_PER_BYTE < __NR_HPAGEFLAGS); \
>> + return test_bit(HPG_##flname, &(page->private)); }
>> +
>> +#define SETHPAGEFLAG(uname, flname) \
>> +static inline void SetHPage##uname(struct page *page) \
>> + { set_bit(HPG_##flname, &(page->private)); }
>> +
>> +#define CLEARHPAGEFLAG(uname, flname) \
>> +static inline void ClearHPage##uname(struct page *page) \
>> + { clear_bit(HPG_##flname, &(page->private)); }
>> +#else
>> +#define TESTHPAGEFLAG(uname, flname) \
>> +static inline int HPage##uname(struct page *page) \
>> + { BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof_field(struct page, private) * \
>> + BITS_PER_BYTE < __NR_HPAGEFLAGS); \
>> + return 0 }
>
> You missed a ";" right there.

Thanks. I made that typo when fixing up some trivial checkpatch warnings.
Lesson learned (again), nothing is too trivial not to introduce erros.

> I might be missing something, but I do not think we need a BUILD_BUG_ON there
> when CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is not set?
> Actually, would make more sense to move the BUILD_BUG_ON from above to
> hugetlb_init?

Yes, hugetlb_init is a better location for the BUILD_BUG_ON. I initially
put it there before creating the !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE version of the macros.
With the !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE versions, none of the flags are ever used so
it is OK if the BUILD_BUG_ON is not included if !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE.

--
Mike Kravetz