Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + /* At this point we hold neither the i_pages lock nor the > > + * page lock: the page may be truncated or invalidated > > + * (changing page->mapping to NULL), or even swizzled > > + * back from swapper_space to tmpfs file mapping > > Where does this comment come from? This is cifs, not tmpfs. You'll > never be asked to writeback a page from the swap cache. Dirty pages > can be truncated, so the first half of the comment is still accurate. > I'd rather it moved down to below the folio lock, and was rephrased > so it described why we're checking everything again. Actually, it's in v6.2 cifs and I just move it in the patch where I copy the afs writepages implementation into cifs. afs got it in 2007 when I added write support[1] and I suspect I copied it from cifs. cifs got it in 2005 when Steve added writepages support[2]. I think he must've got it from fs/mpage.c and the comment there is prehistoric. David 31143d5d515ece617ffccb7df5ff75e4d1dfa120 [1] 37c0eb4677f733a773df6287b0f73f00274402e3 [2]
