[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <38d36f24-4c27-4af6-ba17-550ee13513f1@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:45:43 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 3/17/25 13:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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"?
sure, why not :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists