[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120531054533.GE24855@skywalker.linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:15:33 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
dhillf@...il.com, mhocko@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V7 02/14] hugetlbfs: don't use ERR_PTR with VM_FAULT*
values
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:02:59PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > The current use of VM_FAULT_* codes with ERR_PTR requires us to ensure
> > VM_FAULT_* values will not exceed MAX_ERRNO value. Decouple the
> > VM_FAULT_* values from MAX_ERRNO.
> >
>
> Yeah, but is there a reason for using VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE_MASK since
> that's the only VM_FAULT_* value that is greater than MAX_ERRNO? The rest
> of your patch set doesn't require this, so I think this change should just
> be dropped. (And PTR_ERR() still returns long, this wasn't fixed from my
> original review.)
>
The changes was done as per Andrew's request so that we don't have such hidden
dependencies on the values of VM_FAULT_*. Yes it can be a seperate patch from
the patchset. I have changed int to long as per your review.
-aneesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists