[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <z5zu4izugwicreygz2yehepozrwnzeljucg34mplcpfdirl6rb@5y75qntbiwiy>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:20:00 +0100
From: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm/mseal: always define VM_SEALED
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 02:00:36PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> There is no reason to treat VM_SEALED in a special way, in each other case
> in which a VMA flag is unavailable due to configuration, we simply assign
> that flag to VM_NONE, make VM_SEALED consistent with all other VMA flags in
> this respect.
>
> Additionally, use the next available bit for VM_SEALED, 42, rather than
> arbitrarily putting it at 63 and update the declaration to match all other
> VMA flags.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>
--
Pedro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists