[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220311134203.47cbeab087b731bada12d0f1@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:42:03 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@...cinc.com>
Cc: <surenb@...gle.com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>, <rientjes@...gle.com>,
<sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, <edgararriaga@...gle.com>,
<minchan@...nel.org>, <nadav.amit@...il.com>, <mhocko@...e.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2,0/2]mm: madvise: return correct bytes processed with
process_madvise
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 20:59:04 +0530 Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@...cinc.com> wrote:
> With the process_madvise(), always choose to return non zero processed
> bytes over an error. This can help the user to know on which VMA, passed
> in the 'struct iovec' vector list, is failed to advise thus can take the
> decission of retrying/skipping on that VMA.
Thanks, this is not good.
We should have added userspace tests for process_madvise() along with
the syscall itself. But evidently that was omitted. If someone
decides to contribute such tests, hopefully they will include checks
for these return values.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists