Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] mm: split folio_pte_batch() into folio_pte_batch() and folio_pte_batch_ext()

[Oscar Salvador]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:55:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Many users (including upcoming ones) don't really need the flags etc,
> and can live with a function call.
> 
> So let's provide a basic, non-inlined folio_pte_batch().
> 
> In zap_present_ptes(), where we care about performance, the compiler
> already seem to generate a call to a common inlined folio_pte_batch()
> variant, shared with fork() code. So calling the new non-inlined variant
> should not make a difference.
> 
> While at it, drop the "addr" parameter that is unused.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>

FWIW, folio_pte_batch_flags seems more appealling to me as well.

Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs