Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

[Hugh Dickins]

On 19 Jan 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Well, as the new shm code doesn't return 1 any more, the whole
> > locked page handling should just be deleted. ramfs always just
> > re-marked the page dirty in its own "writepage()" function, so it
> > was only shmfs that ever returned this special case, and because of
> > other issues it already got excised by Christoph..
> 
> No, that's not completely right. There may be rare cases like out of
> swap that shmem_write does return 1. But couldn't it simply set the
> page dirty like ramfs_writepage?

I notice that shmem_writepage() in 2.4.1-pre10 is still doing an
early "return 1" without UnlockPage(page): surely that's wrong?

Hugh