On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 02:24:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 06.08.25 14:18, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > > > We could go one step further and special case in mm_get_huge_zero_folio() + > > > mm_put_huge_zero_folio() on CONFIG_STATIC_HUGE_ZERO_FOLIO. > > > > > > > Hmm, but we could have also failed to allocate even though the option > > was enabled. > > Then we return huge_zero_folio, which is NULL? > > Or what are you concerned about? But don't we want to keep the "dynamic" allocation part be present even though we failed to allocate it statically in the shrinker_init? Mainly so that the existing users of mm_get_huge_zero_folio() are not affected by these changes. > > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb >
