[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z9gUd-5t8b5NX2wE@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:24:23 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org, pierre@...ckhpc.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
linux@...linux.org.uk, maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com,
christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com,
vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/3] fix xa_alloc_cyclic() return checks
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 09:55:44AM +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 3/14/25 15:23, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > > What about changing init flags instead, and add a new one for this
> > > purpose?, say:
> > > XA_FLAGS_ALLOC_RET0
> >
> > No. Dan's suggestion is better. Actually, I'd go further and
> > make xa_alloc_cyclic() always do that. People who want the wrapping
> > information get to call __xa_alloc_cyclic themselves.
>
> Even better, LGTM!
Is that "I volunteer to do this"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists