26 May
2022
26 May
'22
10:48 a.m.
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 02:16:34AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Bizarre this started showing up now. The recent patch was:
info->alloced += compound_nr(page);inode->i_blocks += BLOCKS_PER_PAGE << compound_order(page);
info->alloced += folio_nr_pages(folio);inode->i_blocks += BLOCKS_PER_PAGE << folio_order(folio);so it could tell that compound_order() was small, but folio_order() might be large?
The old code also generates a warning on my test system. Smatch thinks both compound_order() and folio_order() are 0-255. I guess because of the "unsigned char compound_order;" in the struct page.
regards, dan carpenter