From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:33725 "EHLO mail-pf1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728096AbeISXvK (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2018 19:51:10 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id d4-v6so3093969pfn.0 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:12:02 -0700 From: Omar Sandoval To: Johannes Weiner Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] mm: split SWP_FILE into SWP_ACTIVATED and SWP_FS Message-ID: <20180919181202.GJ479@vader> References: <6d63d8668c4287a4f6d203d65696e96f80abdfc7.1536704650.git.osandov@fb.com> <20180919180232.GB18068@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180919180232.GB18068@cmpxchg.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:02:32PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:34:44PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > @@ -2411,8 +2412,10 @@ static int setup_swap_extents(struct swap_info_struct *sis, sector_t *span) > > > > if (mapping->a_ops->swap_activate) { > > ret = mapping->a_ops->swap_activate(sis, swap_file, span); > > + if (ret >= 0) > > + sis->flags |= SWP_ACTIVATED; > > if (!ret) { > > - sis->flags |= SWP_FILE; > > + sis->flags |= SWP_FS; > > ret = add_swap_extent(sis, 0, sis->max, 0); > > Won't this single, linear extent be in conflict with the discontiguous > extents you set up in your swap_activate callback in the last patch? That's only in the case that ->swap_activate() returned 0, which only nfs_swap_activate() will do. btrfs_swap_activate() and iomap_swapfile_activate() both return the number of extents they set up.