[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d77ecdac-3712-8d4b-57d5-f8c9e4569e6f@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 09:04:44 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/mprotect: Use long for page accountings and retval
On 05.01.23 20:22, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:44:16AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> I'm wondering if we should just return the number of changed pages via a
>> separate pointer and later using an int for returning errors -- when
>> touching this interface already.
>>
>> Only who's actually interested in the number of pages would pass a pointer
>> to an unsigned long (NUMA).
>>
>> And code that expects that there never ever are failures (mprotect, NUMA)
>> could simply check for WARN_ON_ONCE(ret).
>>
>> I assume you evaluated that option as well, what was your conclusion?
>
> Since a single long can cover both things as retval, it's better to keep it
> simple? Thanks,
>
Fine with me.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists