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, 3 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
index a82e1417c4d2..59850dc17b22 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
@@ -323,9 +323,10 @@ static bool can_finish_ordered_extent(struct btrfs_ordered_extent *ordered,
 		 *
 		 * If there's no such bit, we need to skip to next range.
 		 */
-		if (!btrfs_page_test_ordered(fs_info, page, file_offset, len))
+		if (!btrfs_folio_test_ordered(fs_info, page_folio(page),
+					      file_offset, len))
 			return false;
-		btrfs_page_clear_ordered(fs_info, page, file_offset, len);
+		btrfs_folio_clear_ordered(fs_info, page_folio(page), file_offset, len);
 	}
 
 	/* Now we're fine to update the accounting. */