On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:44:22AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > >Yeah I had a bit of a look around, and it seems OK (but would > >appreciate an ack from someone who knows the code). > > > >These pages will never get seen by page reclaim, so we're OK > >there. There is a get_page before the SetPageLocked and a put_page > >right before the unlock_page, so refcounting should not be broken > >if it wasn't already: note that the lock_page doesn't pin a > >reference on a page in general -- we can use it as such for pagecache > >(although it isn't very clean), because the lock pins the page in > >pagecache and the pagecache holds a ref. > > > >Anyway, if Dave or David can take a look, that would be appreciated. > >We'll need this for 2.6.23. > > I talked with Ben earlier and I can't see anything inherently wrong > with removing the lock_page, I assume it was put there to stop things > getting swapped but if the get/put does that then I'd be happy to > remove it.
Well it is prevented from being swapped out because it never gets put on swapout lists, but the get/put certainly doesn't hurt :) > I'm just a bit confused how this didn't get picked up in -mm at all. Beats me. It was in there for nearly 5 months. Mustn't have been tested or reported. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
