[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd6c05ad-efc4-46f1-b34c-1bfd2877852c@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:48:25 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, mhocko@...e.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
mjguzik@...il.com, oliver.sang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net,
paulmck@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com, lokeshgidra@...gle.com,
minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, klarasmodin@...il.com,
corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/17] mm: modify vma_iter_store{_gfp} to indicate if
it's storing a new vma
On 12/26/24 18:06, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> vma_iter_store() functions can be used both when adding a new vma and
> when updating an existing one. However for existing ones we do not need
> to mark them attached as they are already marked that way. Add a parameter
> to distinguish the usage and skip vma_mark_attached() when not needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Seems like an overkill? Looks the common case is the "true" case so add a
variant for the false case? Also seems no _store_gfp caller uses false so
that doesn't need to exist anyway?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists