linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/12] mempolicy trivia: use pgoff

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]

Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:38:17 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
        Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] mempolicy trivia: use pgoff_t in shared mempolicy
 tree

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:31:40PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:28:14AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Prefer the more explicit "pgoff_t" to "unsigned long" when dealing with
> > a shared mempolicy tree.  Delete confusing comment about pseudo mm vmas.
> 
> Yes, with three quibbles

Actually, a fourth has occurred to me

> >  struct sp_node {
> >  	struct rb_node nd;
> > -	unsigned long start, end;
> > +	pgoff_t start, end;
> >  	struct mempolicy *policy;
> >  };

This data structure is unused outside mempolicy.c today, and you don't
add any.  Perhaps we could move it from mempolicy.h to mempolicy.c?