patch-2.3.9 linux/mm/page_io.c

• Lines: 44
• Date: Sat Jun 26 12:04:40 1999
• Orig file: v2.3.8/linux/mm/page_io.c
• Orig date: Tue Jun 22 12:24:29 1999

diff -u --recursive --new-file v2.3.8/linux/mm/page_io.c linux/mm/page_io.c
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@
 	} else if (p->swap_file) {
 		struct inode *swapf = p->swap_file->d_inode;
 		int i;
-		if (swapf->i_op->bmap == NULL
+		if (swapf->i_op->get_block == NULL
 			&& swapf->i_op->smap != NULL){
 			/*
 				With MS-DOS, we use msdos_smap which returns
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@
 				It sounds like ll_rw_swap_file defined
 				its operation size (sector size) based on
 				PAGE_SIZE and the number of blocks to read.
-				So using bmap or smap should work even if
+				So using get_block or smap should work even if
 				smap will require more blocks.
 			*/
 			int j;
@@ -147,8 +147,7 @@
  		atomic_inc(&nr_async_pages);
  	}
  	if (dolock) {
- 		/* only lock/unlock swap cache pages! */
- 		set_bit(PG_swap_unlock_after, &page->flags);
+ 		set_bit(PG_free_swap_after, &page->flags);
 		p->swap_map[offset]++;
  	}
  	set_bit(PG_free_after, &page->flags);
@@ -174,15 +173,6 @@
 		(char *) page_address(page), 
 		page_count(page));
 #endif
-}
-
-/*
- * This is run when asynchronous page I/O has completed.
- * It decrements the swap bitmap counter
- */
-void swap_after_unlock_page(unsigned long entry)
-{
-	swap_free(entry);
 }
 
 /*