On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Yang Shi wrote: > On 11/6/19 10:59 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Yes, I don't think it fixes any actual problem: just a cleanup to > > make the two calls look the same when they don't need to be different > > (whereas the call from __read_swap_cache_async() rightly uses a > > lower priority gfp). > > I'm supposed it is because __read_swap_cache_async()is typically called from > page fault context which is less crucial than reclaim. Exactly. > > Shall I consider this as an ack but with commit log rephrased to reflect the > cleanup? Okay, Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
