On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:49:38PM -0800, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> > + u64 buf_end;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(check_add_overflow(buf_addr, (u64)iov_len, &buf_end)))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + if (unlikely(buf_addr < imu->ubuf || buf_end > (imu->ubuf + imu->len)))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + total_len += iov_len;
> > + /* by using folio address it also accounts for bvec offset */
> > + offset = buf_addr - folio_addr;
> > + src_bvec = imu->bvec + (offset >> imu->folio_shift);
> > + offset &= folio_mask;
> > +
> > + for (; iov_len; offset = 0, bvec_idx++, src_bvec++) {
> > + size_t seg_size = min_t(size_t, iov_len,
> > + folio_size - offset);
> > +
> > + res_bvec[bvec_idx].bv_page = src_bvec->bv_page;
> > + res_bvec[bvec_idx].bv_offset = offset;
> > + res_bvec[bvec_idx].bv_len = seg_size;
>
> Could just increment res_bvec to avoid the variable bvec_idx?
And utilizing bvec_set_page() to initialize looks a bit cleaner too.
