On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:33:32PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > I'm seeing about 18 places where set_page_dirty() is used, in the call site > conversions so far, and about 20 places where set_page_dirty_lock() is > used. So without knowing how many of the former (if any) represent bugs, > you can see why the proposal here supports both DIRTY and DIRTY_LOCK. Well, it should be fairly easy to audit. set_page_dirty() is only safe if we are dealing with a file backed page where we have reference on the inode it hangs off. Which should basically be never or almost never.
