Yes.
It just happens that whoever (Rik?) originally named that function was
primarily thinking of the page cache at the time; or perhaps wasn't
thinking of the file page cache at all, just regarding all the pages
we put on that list as cached in some sense.
You're right that it's a little anomalous, but nothing to worry about.
I get more bothered by page_cache_get(), which is and always(?) has
been the same thing as get_page(): sometimes we use one, sometimes
the other, and often we use page_cache_get() on anonymous pages.
Hugh
--
