[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <064ba776-e6c6-a430-7d74-0b691123e2a9@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 18:41:20 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Liang Zhang <zhangliang5@...wei.com>,
Pedro Gomes <pedrodemargomes@...il.com>,
Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 05/13] mm/rmap: remove do_page_add_anon_rmap()
On 24.02.22 18:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> ... and instead convert page_add_anon_rmap() to accept flags.
>
> Can you fix the comment above the RMAP_xyz definitions? That one still says
>
> /* bitflags for do_page_add_anon_rmap() */
>
> that tnow no longer exists.
Oh, yes sure.
>
> Also, while this kind of code isn't unusual, I think it's still confusing:
>
>> + page_add_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr, 0);
>
> because when reading that, at least I go "what does 0 mean? Is it a
> page offset, or what?"
Yes, I agree.
>
> It might be a good idea to simply add a
>
> #define RMAP_PAGE 0x00
>
> or something like that, just to have the callers all make it obvious
> that we're talking about that RMAP_xyz bits - even if some of them may
> be default.
>
> (Then using an enum of a special type is something we do if we want to
> add extra clarity or sparse testing, I don't think there are enough
> users for that to make sense)
>
Actually, I thought about doing it similarly to what I did in
page_alloc.c with fpi_t:
typedef int __bitwise fpi_t;
#define FPI_NONE ((__force fpi_t)0)
I can do something similar here.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists