btrfs: migrate subpage code to folio interfaces

Although subpage itself is conflicting with higher folio, since subpage
(sectorsize < PAGE_SIZE and nodesize < PAGE_SIZE) means we will never
need higher order folio, there is a hidden pitfall:

- btrfs_page_*() helpers

Those helpers are an abstraction to handle both subpage and non-subpage
cases, which means we're going to pass pages pointers to those helpers.

And since those helpers are shared between data and metadata paths, it's
unavoidable to let them to handle folios, including higher order
folios).

Meanwhile for true subpage case, we should only have a single page
backed folios anyway, thus add a new ASSERT() for btrfs_subpage_assert()
to ensure that.

Also since those helpers are shared between both data and metadata, add
some extra ASSERT()s for data path to make sure we only get single page
backed folio for now.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/compression.c b/fs/btrfs/compression.c
index 5678e73f1509..5422a00214b0 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/compression.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/compression.c
@@ -306,8 +306,8 @@ static noinline void end_compressed_writeback(const struct compressed_bio *cb)
 		for (i = 0; i < ret; i++) {
 			struct folio *folio = fbatch.folios[i];
 
-			btrfs_page_clamp_clear_writeback(fs_info, &folio->page,
-							 cb->start, cb->len);
+			btrfs_folio_clamp_clear_writeback(fs_info, folio,
+							  cb->start, cb->len);
 		}
 		folio_batch_release(&fbatch);
 	}
@@ -541,7 +541,8 @@ static noinline int add_ra_bio_pages(struct inode *inode,
 		 * subpage::readers and to unlock the page.
 		 */
 		if (fs_info->sectorsize < PAGE_SIZE)
-			btrfs_subpage_start_reader(fs_info, page, cur, add_size);
+			btrfs_subpage_start_reader(fs_info, page_folio(page),
+						   cur, add_size);
 		put_page(page);
 		cur += add_size;
 	}