[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wixsPuT5ingsEqj2a1PKuc+rTS_oeD_VL0p8G_3oRiJhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:16:13 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: Separate fault info out of 'struct vm_fault'
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:01 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Try to clean this up by splitting the immutable fault information out
> into a new 'struct vm_fault_info' which is embedded in 'struct vm_fault'
> and will later be made 'const'. The vast majority of this change was
> performed with a coccinelle patch:
You may have a reason for doing it this way, but my reaction to this
was: "just make the new embedded struct unnamed".
Then you wouldn't need to do all the automated coccinelle changes.
Is there some reason you didn't do that, or just a "oh, I didn't think of it".
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists