Ocfs2 devel - Jan 2023 - [PATCH 1/6] fs: remove an outdated comment on mpage_writepages

mpage_writepages doesn't do any of the page locking itself, so remove
and outdated comment on the locking pattern there.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
---
 fs/mpage.c | 8 --------
 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/mpage.c b/fs/mpage.c
index 0f8ae954a57903..910cfe8a60d2e4 100644
--- a/fs/mpage.c
+++ b/fs/mpage.c
@@ -641,14 +641,6 @@ static int __mpage_writepage(struct page *page, struct
writeback_control *wbc,
  *
  * This is a library function, which implements the writepages()
  * address_space_operation.
- *
- * If a page is already under I/O, generic_writepages() skips it, even
- * if it's dirty.  This is desirable behaviour for memory-cleaning
writeback,
- * but it is INCORRECT for data-integrity system calls such as fsync(). 
fsync()
- * and msync() need to guarantee that all the data which was dirty at the time
- * the call was made get new I/O started against them.  If wbc->sync_mode is
- * WB_SYNC_ALL then we were called for data integrity and we must wait for
- * existing IO to complete.
  */
 int
 mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
-- 
2.35.1

On Thu 29-12-22 06:10:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> mpage_writepages doesn't do any of the page locking itself, so remove
> and outdated comment on the locking pattern there.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
Looks good. Feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz>

								Honza
> ---
>  fs/mpage.c | 8 --------
>  1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/mpage.c b/fs/mpage.c
> index 0f8ae954a57903..910cfe8a60d2e4 100644
> --- a/fs/mpage.c
> +++ b/fs/mpage.c
> @@ -641,14 +641,6 @@ static int __mpage_writepage(struct page *page, struct
writeback_control *wbc,
>   *
>   * This is a library function, which implements the writepages()
>   * address_space_operation.
> - *
> - * If a page is already under I/O, generic_writepages() skips it, even
> - * if it's dirty.  This is desirable behaviour for memory-cleaning
writeback,
> - * but it is INCORRECT for data-integrity system calls such as fsync(). 
fsync()
> - * and msync() need to guarantee that all the data which was dirty at the
time
> - * the call was made get new I/O started against them.  If
wbc->sync_mode is
> - * WB_SYNC_ALL then we were called for data integrity and we must wait for
> - * existing IO to complete.
>   */
>  int
>  mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
> -- 
> 2.35.1
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack at suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR