On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Minchan Kim wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > I disagree with you there: I like the way Miklos made it symmetric, >> > I like the way delete_from_swap_cache drops the swap cache reference, >> > I dislike the way remove_from_page_cache does not - I did once try to >> > change that, but did a bad job, messed up reiserfs or reiser4 I forget >> > which, retreated in shame. >> >> I agree symmetric is good. I just said current fact which is that >> remove_from_page_cache doesn't release ref. >> So I thought we have to match current semantic to protect confusing. >> Okay. I will not oppose current semantics. >> Instead of it, please add it (ex, caller should hold the page >> reference) in function description. >> >> I am happy to hear that you tried it. >> Although it is hard, I think it's very valuable thing. >> Could you give me hint to googling your effort and why it is failed? > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/24/140 Thanks. Now we have only 3 callers of remove_from_page_cache in mmtom. 1. truncate_huge_page 2. shmem_writepage 3. truncate_complete_page 4. fuse_try_move_page It seems all of caller hold the page reference so It's ok to change the semantic of remove_from_page_cache. Okay. I will do that. > > Hugh > -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>