linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/10] mm/migrate: make migrate_pages() return nr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 13:10:34 -0700
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, weixugc@...gle.com,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] mm/migrate: make migrate_pages() return nr_succeeded

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:50 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/8/21 11:17 AM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -8490,7 +8490,8 @@ static int __alloc_contig_migrate_range(struct compact_control *cc,
> >               cc->nr_migratepages -= nr_reclaimed;
> >
> >               ret = migrate_pages(&cc->migratepages, alloc_migration_target,
> > -                             NULL, (unsigned long)&mtc, cc->mode, MR_CONTIG_RANGE);
> > +                             NULL, (unsigned long)&mtc, cc->mode, MR_CONTIG_RANGE,
> > +                             NULL);
> >       }
> >       if (ret < 0) {
> >               putback_movable_pages(&cc->migratepages);
>
> I also considered passing NULL to mean "I don't care about
> nr_succeeded".  I mostly avoided it to reduce churn.  But, looking at it
> here, it does seem cleaner.
>
> Any objections to moving over to Oscar's suggestion?

No, fine to me.