linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] mm/mempolicy: unify the create() func for bind/interleave/prefer-many policies

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:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:51:42 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] mm/mempolicy: unify the create() func for
 bind/interleave/prefer-many policies

On Mon 12-07-21 16:09:34, Feng Tang wrote:
> As they all do the same thing: sanity check and save nodemask info, create
> one mpol_new_nodemask() to reduce redundancy.

Do we really need a create() callback these days?

> Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>

Other than that LGTM
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

> ---
>  mm/mempolicy.c | 24 ++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index d90247d6a71b..e5ce5a7e8d92 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static void mpol_relative_nodemask(nodemask_t *ret, const nodemask_t *orig,
>  	nodes_onto(*ret, tmp, *rel);
>  }
>  
> -static int mpol_new_interleave(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> +static int mpol_new_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
>  {
>  	if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
>  		return -EINVAL;
> @@ -210,22 +210,6 @@ static int mpol_new_preferred(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int mpol_new_preferred_many(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> -{
> -	if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -	pol->nodes = *nodes;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static int mpol_new_bind(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> -{
> -	if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -	pol->nodes = *nodes;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
>  /*
>   * mpol_set_nodemask is called after mpol_new() to set up the nodemask, if
>   * any, for the new policy.  mpol_new() has already validated the nodes
> @@ -405,7 +389,7 @@ static const struct mempolicy_operations mpol_ops[MPOL_MAX] = {
>  		.rebind = mpol_rebind_default,
>  	},
>  	[MPOL_INTERLEAVE] = {
> -		.create = mpol_new_interleave,
> +		.create = mpol_new_nodemask,
>  		.rebind = mpol_rebind_nodemask,
>  	},
>  	[MPOL_PREFERRED] = {
> @@ -413,14 +397,14 @@ static const struct mempolicy_operations mpol_ops[MPOL_MAX] = {
>  		.rebind = mpol_rebind_preferred,
>  	},
>  	[MPOL_BIND] = {
> -		.create = mpol_new_bind,
> +		.create = mpol_new_nodemask,
>  		.rebind = mpol_rebind_nodemask,
>  	},
>  	[MPOL_LOCAL] = {
>  		.rebind = mpol_rebind_default,
>  	},
>  	[MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY] = {
> -		.create = mpol_new_preferred_many,
> +		.create = mpol_new_nodemask,
>  		.rebind = mpol_rebind_preferred,
>  	},
>  };
> -- 
> 2.7.4

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs