[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z/yEhMF4qDCUjnxg@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 11:44:04 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, osalvador@...e.de,
yanjun.zhu@...ux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm/gup: clean up codes in fault_in_xxx() functions
On 04/13/25 at 10:09pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.04.25 04:04, Baoquan He wrote:
> > The code style in fault_in_readable() and fault_in_writable() is a
> > little inconsistent with fault_in_safe_writeable(). In fault_in_readable()
> > and fault_in_writable(), it uses 'uaddr' passed in as loop cursor. While
> > in fault_in_safe_writeable(), local variable 'start' is used as loop
> > cursor. This may mislead people when reading code or making change in
> > these codes.
> >
> > Here define explicit loop cursor and use for loop to simplify codes in
> > these three functions. These cleanup can make them be consistent in
> > code style and improve readability.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> > ---
>
> Hopefully we don't introduce anything unexpected ... do we have some unit
> test that could make use feel better, especially regarding end < start?
>
> If not, could we add one based on some feature that ends up calling at least
> one of these functions?
Seems no existing case. GUP has selftests, no test codes for kunit. I will see
if I can add one, maybe it's not easy.
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists