[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180420082829.GE4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:28:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: event: core: Change return type to vm_fault_t
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 01:58:31AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler and
> page_mkwrite handler in struct vm_operations_struct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/core.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 96db9ae..d09f1c4 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -4918,11 +4918,11 @@ void perf_event_update_userpage(struct perf_event *event)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_event_update_userpage);
>
> -static int perf_mmap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> +static vm_fault_t perf_mmap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
I'm fine with the patch, but shouldn't this be part of a larger series /
cocinelle script?
Even if not everything that has a (struct vm_fault *) argument is a
fault handler, you could still match on the function being assigned to
vm_operations_struct::fault.
So ACK on the patch, but please don't do this with a slow trickle of
individual patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists