[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190621144131.GQ19891@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:41:31 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] mm: consolidate the get_user_pages* implementations
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:40:57PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> @@ -2168,7 +2221,7 @@ static void gup_pgd_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> */
> static bool gup_fast_permitted(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> {
> - return true;
> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_FAST_GUP) ? true : false;
The ?: is needed with IS_ENABLED?
> }
> #endif
Oh, you fixed the util.c this way instead of the headerfile
#ifdef..
I'd suggest to revise this block a tiny bit:
-#ifndef gup_fast_permitted
+#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_FAST_GUP) || !defined(gup_fast_permitted)
/*
* Check if it's allowed to use __get_user_pages_fast() for the range, or
* we need to fall back to the slow version:
*/
-bool gup_fast_permitted(unsigned long start, int nr_pages)
+static bool gup_fast_permitted(unsigned long start, int nr_pages)
{
Just in case some future arch code mismatches the header and kconfig..
Regards,
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists