On 2022/4/4 23:32, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2022 at 02:22:18PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> lock_page needs the caller to have a reference on the page->mapping inode
>> due to sync_page. Also lock_page_nosync is introduced which does not do a
>> sync_page via commit db37648cd6ce ("[PATCH] mm: non syncing lock_page()").
>> But commit 7eaceaccab5f ("block: remove per-queue plugging") kills off the
>> old plugging along with aops->sync_page() and lock_page_nosync. So there
>> is no need to have a reference on the page->mapping inode when calling
>> lock_page anymore. Remove this obsolete and confusing comment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks. I'll fix up the changelog (some of the tenses are a little
> strange) and take this through my pagecache tree.
Many thanks for doing this. :)
>
>> include/linux/pagemap.h | 3 ---
>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pagemap.h b/include/linux/pagemap.h
>> index 993994cd943a..8dfe8e49c427 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pagemap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h
>> @@ -908,9 +908,6 @@ static inline void folio_lock(struct folio *folio)
>> __folio_lock(folio);
>> }
>>
>> -/*
>> - * lock_page may only be called if we have the page's inode pinned.
>> - */
>> static inline void lock_page(struct page *page)
>> {
>> struct folio *folio;
>> --
>> 2.23.0
>>
>
> .
>
