On Mon, 03. Mar 08:31, Gao Xiang wrote:
On 2025/3/3 02:13, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
My concern was that in 6.1 and 6.6 there is still a pattern at that place, not directly related to 2080ca1ed3e4 ("erofs: tidy up `struct z_erofs_bvec`"):
- checking ->private against Z_EROFS_PREALLOCATED_PAGE
- zeroing out ->private if the previous check holds true
// 6.1/6.6 fragment
if (page->private == Z_EROFS_PREALLOCATED_PAGE) { WRITE_ONCE(pcl->compressed_bvecs[nr].page, page); set_page_private(page, 0); tocache = true; goto out_tocache; }
while the upstream patch changed the situation. If it's okay then no remarks from me. Sorry for the noise..
Yeah, yet as I mentioned `set_page_private(page, 0);` seems redundant from the codebase, I'm fine with either way.
Somehow I've written that mail without seeing your last reply there first. Now everything is clear.
I'll kindly ask Alexey to send the v2 with minor adjustments to generally non-minor merge conflict resolutions and the backporter's comment though.
And again, thanks for clarifying all this.