Adding MM list to this cover letter.

On 2024/1/24 14:29, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> With the folio interface, it's much easier to support multi-page sector
> size (aka, sector/block size > PAGE_SIZE, which is rare between major
> upstream filesystems).
> 
> The basic idea is, if we firstly convert to full folio interface, and
> allow an address space to only allocate folio which is exactly
> block/sector size, the support for multi-page would be mostly done.
> 
> But before that support, there are still quite some conversion left for
> btrfs.
> 
> Furthermore, with both subpage and multipage sector size, we need to
> handle folio different:
> 
> - For subpage
>    The folio would always be page sized.
> 
> - For multipage (and regular sectorsize == PAGE_SIZE)
>    The folio would be sector sized.
> 
> Furthermore, the filemap interface would make various shifts more
> complex.
> As filemap_*() interfaces use index which is PAGE_SHIFT based,
> meanwhile with potential larger folio, the folio shift can be larger
> than PAGE_SHIFT.

As I really want some feedback on this part.

I'm pretty sure we would have some filesystems go utilizing larger 
folios to implement their multi-page block size support.

Thus in that case, can we have an interface change to make all folio 
versions of filemap_*() to accept a file offset instead of page index?

Thanks,
Qu