[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230921184731.mg3h777fmpndoru4@revolver>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 14:47:31 -0400
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pedro.falcato@...il.com,
stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] maple_tree: Add MAS_UNDERFLOW and MAS_OVERFLOW states
* Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> [230921 14:40]:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:12:36PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > Since MAS_NONE is used for handling of the maple tree when it's a single
> > entry at 0 (just a pointer), changing the handling of MAS_NONE in
> > mas_find() would make the code more complicated and error prone.
>
> Single entry at index 0 is MAS_ROOT, not MAS_NONE.
Ah, sorry. I didn't explain this well. We end up in MAS_NONE when we
search from MAS_ROOT upwards.. that is, there's a value only at 0 and we
request 1 - ULONG_MAX, or we've called mas_find() with an index > 0. So
there is no node in the tree for this entry.
The complication arises when mas_prev(), mas_next() or
mas_walk()/mas_find() has already set MAS_NONE, then we can't tell the
difference and so we don't really know what the Right Thing to do would
be.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists