[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <838bda4c00d1a93e5146cf89ac0f42a64f0fc61d.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:57:47 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>
CC: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"dja@...ens.net" <dja@...ens.net>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Separate put pages and flush VM flags
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:19 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:41:18PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > When VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES was added, it was defined with the same value
> > as
> > VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS. This doesn't seem like it will cause any big
> > functional problems other than some excess flushing for
> > VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES
> > allocations.
> >
> > Redefine VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES to have its own value. Also, move the
> > comment
> > and remove whitespace for VM_KASAN such that the flags lower down
> > are less
> > likely to be missed in the future.
>
> Er ... I think the problem was that VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS was put away
> from
> all the other flags!
Well it wasn't that far away at the time, the VM_KASAN comment and
whitespace got added later. But yes not ideal.
> Why not this?
128 char line, but looks better to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists