[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <045D8A5597B93E4EBEDDCBF1FC15F5097E16F8E2@fmsmsx121.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:40:01 +0000
From: "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
CC: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"minchan@...nel.org" <minchan@...nel.org>,
"daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com" <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [v5 PATCH 1/2] mm: swap: check if swap backing device is
congested or not
> >
> > + if (si->flags & (SWP_BLKDEV | SWP_FS)) {
>
> I re-read your discussion with Tim and I must say the reasoning behind this
> test remain foggy.
I was worried that the dereference
inode = si->swap_file->f_mapping->host;
is not always safe for corner cases.
So the test makes sure that the dereference is valid.
>
> What goes wrong if we just remove it?
If the dereference to get inode is always safe, we can remove it.
Thanks.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists