linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Change the return value for page isolation functions

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]

Message-Id: <20230215202648.92523-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 20:26:48 +0000
From:   SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        sj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        muchun.song@...ux.dev, naoya.horiguchi@....com,
        linmiaohe@...wei.com, david@...hat.com, osalvador@...e.de,
        mike.kravetz@...cle.com, willy@...radead.org,
        damon@...ts.linux.dev, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Change the return value for page isolation functions

Hi Baolin,

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 18:39:33 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> Now the page isolation functions did not return a boolean to indicate
> success or not, instead it will return a negative error when failed
> to isolate a page. So below code used in most places seem a boolean
> success/failure thing, which can confuse people whether the isolation
> is successful.
> 
> if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
>         continue;
> 
> Moreover the page isolation functions only return 0 or -EBUSY, and
> most users did not care about the negative error except for few users,
> thus we can convert all page isolation functions to return a boolean
> value, which can remove the confusion to make code more clear.
> 
> No functional changes intended in this patch series.

For the series,

Reviewed-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>


Thanks,
SJ

[...]