[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8811ab073c9d1f0c1dfdb04ae193e091839b4682.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 13:51:00 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Liam.Howlett@...cle.com" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "keescook@...omium.org"
<keescook@...omium.org>, "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>, "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>, "io-uring@...r.kernel.org"
<io-uring@...r.kernel.org>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com"
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"christophe.leroy@...roup.eu" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
<tglx@...utronix.de>, "sparclinux@...r.kernel.org"
<sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev" <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Remove mm argument from mm_get_unmapped_area()
On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 12:32 -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>
> I like this patch.
Thanks for taking a look.
>
> I think the context of current->mm is implied. IOW, could we call it
> get_unmapped_area() instead? There are other functions today that use
> current->mm that don't start with current_<whatever>. I probably should
> have responded to Dan's suggestion with my comment.
Yes, get_unmapped_area() is already taken. What else to call it... It is kind of
the process "default" get_unmapped_area(). But with Christoph's proposal it
would basically be arch_get_unmapped_area().
>
> Either way, this is a minor thing so feel free to add:
> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists