[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <98511.1685034443@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 18:07:23 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Extending page pinning into fs/direct-io.c
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> I think the correct way to test for a zero page is
> is_zero_pfn(page_to_pfn(page).
>
> Using my_zero_pfn(vmf->address) in do_anonymous_page() these can easily end up
> in any process.
Should everywhere that is using ZERO_PAGE(0) actually be using my_zero_pfn()?
ZERO_PAGE() could do with a kdoc comment saying how to use it.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists