On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 03:09:09PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote: > > @@ -309,7 +288,10 @@ int invalidate_inode_page(struct page *page) > > It would be nice to retain some of the original comments. May I suggest > this (it has an additional paragraph) for an updated version of comments > above invalidate_inode_page(): > > /* > * Safely invalidate one page from its pagecache mapping. > * It only drops clean, unused pages. The page must be locked. > * > * This function can be called at any time, and is not supposed to throw away > * dirty pages. But pages can be marked dirty at any time too, so use > * remove_mapping(), which safely discards clean, unused pages. > * > * Returns 1 if the page is successfully invalidated, otherwise 0. > */ By the end of this series, it becomes: /** * invalidate_inode_page() - Remove an unused page from the pagecache. * @page: The page to remove. * * Safely invalidate one page from its pagecache mapping. * It only drops clean, unused pages. * * Context: Page must be locked. * Return: The number of pages successfully removed. */ > Also, as long as you're there, a newline after the mapping declaration > would bring this routine into compliance with that convention. Again, by the end, we're at: struct folio *folio = page_folio(page); struct address_space *mapping = folio_mapping(folio); /* The page may have been truncated before it was locked */ if (!mapping) return 0; return mapping_shrink_folio(mapping, folio); > hmmm, now I wonder why this isn't a boolean function. And I think the > reason is that it's quite old. We could make this return a bool and have the one user that cares call folio_nr_pages(). I don't have a strong preference. > Either way, looks good: > > Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks!