On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 07:31:14AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 03:02:29PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Make filemap_release_folio() return one of three values:
> >
> > (0) FILEMAP_CANT_RELEASE_FOLIO
> >
> > Couldn't release the folio's private data, so the folio can't itself
> > be released.
> >
> > (1) FILEMAP_RELEASED_FOLIO
> >
> > The private data on the folio was released and the folio can be
> > released.
> >
> > (2) FILEMAP_FOLIO_HAD_NO_PRIVATE
>
> These names read really odd, due to the different placementments
> of FOLIO, the present vs past tense and the fact that 2 also released
> the folio, and the reliance of callers that one value of an enum
> must be 0, while no unprecedented, is a bit ugly.
Agreed. The thing is that it's not the filemap that's being released,
it's the folio. So these should be:
FOLIO_RELEASE_SUCCESS
FOLIO_RELEASE_FAILED
FOLIO_RELEASE_NO_PRIVATE
... but of course, NO_PRIVATE is also a success. So it's a really weird
thing to be reporting. I'm with you on the latter half of this email:
> But do we even need them? What abut just open coding
> filemap_release_folio (which is a mostly trivial function) in
> shrink_folio_list, which is the only place that cares?
>
> if (folio_has_private(folio) && folio_needs_release(folio)) {
> if (folio_test_writeback(folio))
> goto activate_locked;
>
> if (mapping && mapping->a_ops->release_folio) {
> if (!mapping->a_ops->release_folio(folio, gfp))
> goto activate_locked;
> } else {
> if (!try_to_free_buffers(folio))
> goto activate_locked;
> }
>
> if (!mapping && folio_ref_count(folio) == 1) {
> ...
>
> alternatively just keep using filemap_release_folio and just add the
> folio_needs_release in the first branch. That duplicates the test,
> but makes the change a one-liner.
Or just drop patch 3 entirely?
