On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 02:44:30PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/16/17 14:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > "There is no user for it"
> >
> > I was liar so need to be a honest guy.
>
> ha-ha-ha. I didn't say that :)
>
> [..]
> > @@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > */
> > if (unlikely(PageSwapBacked(page) != PageSwapCache(page))) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > - ret = SWAP_FAIL;
> > + ret = false;
> > page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> > break;
> > }
>
>
> one thing to notice here is that 'ret = false' and 'ret = SWAP_FAIL'
> are not the same and must produce different results. `ret' is bool
> and SWAP_FAIL was 2. it's return 1 vs return 0, isn't it? so was
> there a bug before?
No, it was not a bug. Just my patchset changed return value meaning.
Look at this.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=148955552314806&w=2
So, false means SWAP_FAIL(ie., stop rmap scanning and bail out) now.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
