diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
index 077744a9e9da..dc17717e5631 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2121,35 +2121,17 @@ static int shmem_replace_folio(struct folio **foliop, gfp_t gfp,
 	/* Swap cache still stores N entries instead of a high-order entry */
 	xa_lock_irq(&swap_mapping->i_pages);
 	for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
-		void *item = xas_load(&xas);
-
-		if (item != old) {
-			error = -ENOENT;
-			break;
-		}
-
-		xas_store(&xas, new);
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(xas_store(&xas, new) != old);
 		xas_next(&xas);
 	}
-	if (!error) {
-		mem_cgroup_replace_folio(old, new);
-		shmem_update_stats(new, nr_pages);
-		shmem_update_stats(old, -nr_pages);
-	}
+
+	mem_cgroup_replace_folio(old, new);
+	shmem_update_stats(new, nr_pages);
+	shmem_update_stats(old, -nr_pages);
 	xa_unlock_irq(&swap_mapping->i_pages);
 
-	if (unlikely(error)) {
-		/*
-		 * Is this possible?  I think not, now that our callers
-		 * check both the swapcache flag and folio->private
-		 * after getting the folio lock; but be defensive.
-		 * Reverse old to newpage for clear and free.
-		 */
-		old = new;
-	} else {
-		folio_add_lru(new);
-		*foliop = new;
-	}
+	folio_add_lru(new);
+	*foliop = new;
 
 	folio_clear_swapcache(old);
 	old->private = NULL;