[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2888446.1676992843@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:20:43 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>,
Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@...il.com>,
Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@...il.com>,
Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Paulo Alcantara <pc@....nz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the cifs tree
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > + /* At this point we hold neither the i_pages lock nor the
> > + * page lock: the page may be truncated or invalidated
> > + * (changing page->mapping to NULL), or even swizzled
> > + * back from swapper_space to tmpfs file mapping
>
> Where does this comment come from? This is cifs, not tmpfs. You'll
> never be asked to writeback a page from the swap cache. Dirty pages
> can be truncated, so the first half of the comment is still accurate.
> I'd rather it moved down to below the folio lock, and was rephrased
> so it described why we're checking everything again.
Actually, it's in v6.2 cifs and I just move it in the patch where I copy the
afs writepages implementation into cifs. afs got it in 2007 when I added
write support[1] and I suspect I copied it from cifs. cifs got it in 2005
when Steve added writepages support[2]. I think he must've got it from
fs/mpage.c and the comment there is prehistoric.
David
31143d5d515ece617ffccb7df5ff75e4d1dfa120 [1]
37c0eb4677f733a773df6287b0f73f00274402e3 [2]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists