[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGPELS7JdxTY5hthmTyU_yDxdG7xR2k0hoA1ZqV_Lj+8LEkO2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 14:23:13 +0800
From: TwT pupupu <tianwentong2000@...il.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: "jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "tglx@...nel.org" <tglx@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/sgx: use vm_flags_t for vm_prot_bits
Sorry about that, I'll make sure to reply to the list.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2026 at 4:57 AM Huang, Kai <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> Hmm I was actually just pointing out, but not suggesting, since I am not
> sure (honestly).
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> With vm_flags_t I think "theoretically" it could stop being integer type
> someday. But I guess the advantage is when someone does that that can
> trigger build error here (so that we can be aware) which perhaps isn't a
> bad thing?
You're right, the build error would be a useful early warning if
vm_flags_t ever becomes incompatible. I'm fine either way, let me know
if you'd prefer keeping
unsigned long and I'll send a v3.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists