[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZRIPNSRSDH2PfG74@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:52:37 +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 08/12] mempolicy: remove confusing MPOL_MF_LAZY dead code
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:30:51AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> v3.8 commit b24f53a0bea3 ("mm: mempolicy: Add MPOL_MF_LAZY") introduced
> MPOL_MF_LAZY, and included it in the MPOL_MF_VALID flags; but a720094ded8
> ("mm: mempolicy: Hide MPOL_NOOP and MPOL_MF_LAZY from userspace for now")
> immediately removed it from MPOL_MF_VALID flags, pending further review.
> "This will need to be revisited", but it has not been reinstated.
>
> The present state is confusing: there is dead code in mm/mempolicy.c to
> handle MPOL_MF_LAZY cases which can never occur. Remove that: it can be
> resurrected later if necessary. But keep the definition of MPOL_MF_LAZY,
> which must remain in the UAPI, even though it always fails with EINVAL.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1553041659-46787-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com/
> links to a previous request to remove MPOL_MF_LAZY.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists