on 6/6/2025 9:28 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 09:11:37 +0800 Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c >>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c >>>> @@ -2145,7 +2145,7 @@ static void shmem_set_folio_swapin_error(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index, >>>> * won't be 0 when inode is released and thus trigger WARN_ON(i_blocks) >>>> * in shmem_evict_inode(). >>>> */ >>>> - shmem_recalc_inode(inode, -nr_pages, -nr_pages); >>>> + shmem_recalc_inode(inode, 0, -nr_pages); >>>> swap_free_nr(swap, nr_pages); >>>> } >>> >>> Huh, three years ago. What do we think might be the userspace-visible >>> runtime effects of this? >> This could trigger WARN_ON(i_blocks) in shmem_evict_inode() as i_blocks >> is supposed to be dropped in the quota free routine. > > I don't believe we've seen such a report in those three years so perhaps > no need to backport. But it's a one-liner so let's backport ;) And > possibly [2/7] and [3/7] should receive the same treatment. > > I don't think any of these need to be fast-tracked into mm-hotfixes so > please resend after a suitable review period and include the cc:stable > on those which -stable needs. > Sure, all issues are hard to trigger. I will resend this series later. Thanks!
