On 02/06/25 at 03:50pm, Kairui Song wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 5:28 PM Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Now, swap_count_continued() has two callers, __swap_duplicate() and > > __swap_entry_free_locked(), the relevant code comment is stale. > > Update it to reflect the current situation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/swapfile.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c > > index bf284ba16198..9ee2238042a5 100644 > > --- a/mm/swapfile.c > > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c > > @@ -3789,8 +3789,8 @@ int add_swap_count_continuation(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > * into, carry if so, or else fail until a new continuation page is allocated; > > * when the original swap_map count is decremented from 0 with continuation, > > * borrow from the continuation and report whether it still holds more. > > - * Called while __swap_duplicate() or swap_entry_free() holds swap or cluster > > - * lock. > > + * Called while __swap_duplicate() or caller of __swap_entry_free_locked() > > + * holds swap or cluster lock. > > It should be only "cluster lock" not "swap or cluster lock" now? You are right, I will update. > > > */ > > static bool swap_count_continued(struct swap_info_struct *si, > > pgoff_t offset, unsigned char count) > > -- > > 2.41.0 > > >
