From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: dead/wrong code in ext3/4_releasepage() Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:33:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20120702173326.GL6679@quack.suse.cz> References: <4FEDDD63.4000800@ya.ru> <20120702170959.GJ6679@quack.suse.cz> <4FF1D712.3060402@ya.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Perepechko Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53025 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752321Ab2GBRd2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:33:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FF1D712.3060402@ya.ru> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Mon 02-07-12 21:14:58, Andrew Perepechko wrote: > So you think the correct fix would be to remove the check completely > since every try_to_release_page() caller is obliged to perform the > page_has_private() check? Yes, I think that would be reasonable. XFS already relies on this so it should be safe. Honza > On 07/02/2012 09:09 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > >On Fri 29-06-12 20:52:51, Andrew Perepechko wrote: > >>This does not lead to oom or any similar issue since calls to > >>try_to_release_page() > >>are accompanied by page_has_private() checks. > >> > >> > > The check is a dead code because ->release_page() is called only if > >PagePrivate bit is set. > > > > Honza > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR