Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mm: swap: remove scan_swap_map_slots() references from comments

[Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>]

On 10/31/25 at 03:50pm, Youngjun Park wrote:
> The scan_swap_map_slots() helper has been removed, but several comments
> still referred to it in swap allocation and reclaim paths. This patch
> cleans up those outdated references and reflows the affected comment
> blocks to match kernel coding style.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Youngjun Park <youngjun.park@lge.com>
> 
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index 4f8a1843262e..543f303f101d 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c

Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

> @@ -236,11 +236,10 @@ static int __try_to_reclaim_swap(struct swap_info_struct *si,
>  	ret = -nr_pages;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * When this function is called from scan_swap_map_slots() and it's
> -	 * called by vmscan.c at reclaiming folios. So we hold a folio lock
> -	 * here. We have to use trylock for avoiding deadlock. This is a special
> -	 * case and you should use folio_free_swap() with explicit folio_lock()
> -	 * in usual operations.
> +	 * We hold a folio lock here. We have to use trylock for
> +	 * avoiding deadlock. This is a special case and you should
> +	 * use folio_free_swap() with explicit folio_lock() in usual
> +	 * operations.
>  	 */
>  	if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>  		goto out;
> @@ -1365,14 +1364,13 @@ static void swap_alloc_slow(swp_entry_t *entry,
>  		spin_lock(&swap_avail_lock);
>  		/*
>  		 * if we got here, it's likely that si was almost full before,
> -		 * and since scan_swap_map_slots() can drop the si->lock,
>  		 * multiple callers probably all tried to get a page from the
>  		 * same si and it filled up before we could get one; or, the si
> -		 * filled up between us dropping swap_avail_lock and taking
> -		 * si->lock. Since we dropped the swap_avail_lock, the
> -		 * swap_avail_head list may have been modified; so if next is
> -		 * still in the swap_avail_head list then try it, otherwise
> -		 * start over if we have not gotten any slots.
> +		 * filled up between us dropping swap_avail_lock.
> +		 * Since we dropped the swap_avail_lock, the swap_avail_list
> +		 * may have been modified; so if next is still in the
> +		 * swap_avail_head list then try it, otherwise start over if we
> +		 * have not gotten any slots.
>  		 */
>  		if (plist_node_empty(&si->avail_list))
>  			goto start_over;
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>