On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 08:19:47PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > ...One small problem which I see with this approach is - we might have > > some non-zero value in ifs->r_b_p when ifs_free() gets called and it > > might give a warning of non-zero ifs->r_b_p, because we updated > > ifs->r_b_p during writes to a non-zero value, but the reads > > never happend. Then during a call to ->release_folio, it will complain > > of a non-zero ifs->r_b_p. > > Yes, we'll have to remove that assertion. I don't think that's a > problem, do you? Or refine it, as the parts not read shoud not be uptodate either? Either way I had another idea to simplify things a bit, but this might end up beeing even simpler, so I'll stop the hacking on my version for now.
