From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>

Seems like on 2.4.9.4 this comment got out of sync ;-)

I'm not completely sure on which basis we don't need any more to do as the
comment suggests, but it seems that when faulting in a second time the same
swap page,  can_share_swap_page() returns false, and we do an early COW break,
so there's no need to write-protect the page.

No idea why we don't defer the COW break.

Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
---

 mm/swapfile.c |    5 +----
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff -puN mm/swapfile.c~remove-stale-comment-from-swapfilec mm/swapfile.c
--- 25/mm/swapfile.c~remove-stale-comment-from-swapfilec	Wed Aug 17 14:51:10 2005
+++ 25-akpm/mm/swapfile.c	Wed Aug 17 14:51:10 2005
@@ -398,10 +398,7 @@ void free_swap_and_cache(swp_entry_t ent
 }
 
 /*
- * Always set the resulting pte to be nowrite (the same as COW pages
- * after one process has exited).  We don't know just how many PTEs will
- * share this swap entry, so be cautious and let do_wp_page work out
- * what to do if a write is requested later.
+ * Since we're swapping it in, we mark it as old.
  *
  * vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock is held.
  */
_