> > To divert people's brains to what the intent was :-)
>
> I can see the intent.
>
> I can also see that the code doesn't match up to the intent.
>
> I call that a bug. You don't. Fine.
>
> But that code isn't coming anywhere _close_ to my tree until the two
> match. And I stand by my assertion that it should be reverted from Alans
> tree too.
I was wrong. The patch is indeed buggy because of the __GFP_IO thing.
So what about moving the check for a dead swap cache page from
swap_writepage() to page_launder() (+ PageSwapCache() check) just before
the "if (!launder_loop)" ?
Yes, its ugly special casing. Any other suggestion ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/