On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 05:34:50AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > My memory might be betraying me, but I think willy once launched an > > attempt to see if we can kill launder_folio. Adding him, and the > > mm and nfs lists to check if I have a point :) > > I ... got distracted with everything else. > > Looking at the original addition of ->launder_page (e3db7691e9f3), I > don't understand why we need it. invalidate_inode_pages2() isn't > supposed to invalidate dirty pages, so I don't understand why nfs > found it necessary to do writeback from ->releasepage() instead > of just returning false like iomap does. Yeah. Miklos (and other fuse folks), can you help figuring out if fuse really wants ->launder_folio? Because it would be really good to settle this question before we have to add iomap infrastruture for it.
