Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm/swap: rename __swap_writepage() to __swap_writeout()

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 01:01:08PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 06:55:38PM -0400, Tal Zussman wrote:
> > Commit 84798514db50 ("mm: Remove swap_writepage() and
> > shmem_writepage()") renamed swap_writepage() to swap_writeout().  Rename
> > __swap_writepage(), which operates on a folio, to match its caller.
> > Update a stale reference to swap_writepage() in swapfile.c as well.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tal Zussman <tz2294@columbia.edu>
> 
> Looking at that commit, I can only guess that pageout() had an
> influence on the swap_writeout() name.
> 
> However, on the read side of the page_io.c API, we're following
> swap_read_folio* consistently.
> 
> [__]swap_write_folio* would seem more symmetrical?

I wanted to be sure that filesystem authors see this as something unusual
rather than something they should implement as a counterpart to their
read_folio operation.  So it was intentionally asymmetric.  I'm open
to discussion of better names, but my hope is that we get closer to the
'do direct IO' model and shmem doesn't need to swizzle its folios into
the swapcache to get them into the swap system.

> [ At the risk of starting something, should the file itself be
>   renamed? swap_rw.c or swap_io.c or something. ]

I'm not opposed to that either!