From a8fb49c6abbbe5c71e1a8a888ef2c4b3e341d169 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 07:49:42 +0200 Subject: mm: remove the for_reclaim field from struct writeback_control This field is now only set to one in the i915 gem code that only calls writeback_iter on it, which ignores the flag. All other checks are thuse dead code and the field can be removed. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250610054959.2057526-7-hch@lst.de Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Baolin Wang Cc: Chengming Zhou Cc: Hugh Dickins Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Nhat Pham Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- fs/fuse/file.c | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/fuse') diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c index 47006d0753f1..95a657a57786 100644 --- a/fs/fuse/file.c +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c @@ -1927,17 +1927,6 @@ int fuse_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc) struct fuse_file *ff; int err; - /* - * Inode is always written before the last reference is dropped and - * hence this should not be reached from reclaim. - * - * Writing back the inode from reclaim can deadlock if the request - * processing itself needs an allocation. Allocations triggering - * reclaim while serving a request can't be prevented, because it can - * involve any number of unrelated userspace processes. - */ - WARN_ON(wbc->for_reclaim); - ff = __fuse_write_file_get(fi); err = fuse_flush_times(inode, ff); if (ff) -- cgit v1.2.3