linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: sparse: clarify a variable name and its value

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, 10 Jun 2024 09:06:37 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@...eel.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@...akecorp.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: sparse: clarify a variable name and its value

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 12:39:28PM +0900, Leesoo Ahn wrote:
> 2024년 6월 10일 (월) 오전 6:03, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>님이 작성:
> >
> > On Sun,  9 Jun 2024 00:21:14 +0900 Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@...eel.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Setting 'limit' variable to 0 might seem like it means "no limit". But
> > > in the memblock API, 0 actually means the 'MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE'
> > > enum, which limits the physical address range based on
> > > 'memblock.current_limit'. This can be confusing.
> >
> > Does it?  From my reading, this meaning applies to the range end
> > address, in memblock_find_in_range_node()?  If your interpretation is
> > correct, this should be documented in the relevant memblock kerneldoc.

It is :-P
 
> IMO, regardless of memblock documentation, it better uses
> MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE enum instead of 0 as a value for the variable.

Using MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE is a slight improvement, but renaming the
variable is not, IMO.
 
> Best regards,
> Leesoo

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.