On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 8:36 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 07:04:33PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > Change folio_lock_or_retry to accept vm_fault struct and return the > > vm_fault_t directly. > > I thought we decided to call this folio_lock_fault()? > > > +static inline vm_fault_t folio_lock_or_retry(struct folio *folio, > > + struct vm_fault *vmf) > > { > > might_sleep(); > > - return folio_trylock(folio) || __folio_lock_or_retry(folio, mm, flags); > > + return folio_trylock(folio) ? 0 : __folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vmf); > > No, don't use the awful ternary operator. The || form is used > everywhere else. Ok, but folio_trylock() returns a boolean while folio_lock_or_retry should return vm_fault_t. How exactly do you suggest changing this? Something like this perhaps: static inline vm_fault_t folio_lock_or_retry(struct folio *folio, struct vm_fault *vmf) { might_sleep(); if (folio_trylock(folio)) return 0; return __folio_lock_or_retry(folio, mm, flags); } ? > > > /* > > * Return values: > > - * true - folio is locked; mmap_lock is still held. > > - * false - folio is not locked. > > + * 0 - folio is locked. > > + * VM_FAULT_RETRY - folio is not locked. > > I don't think we want to be so prescriptive here. It returns non-zero > if the folio is not locked. The precise value is not something that > callers should depend on. Ok, I'll change it to "non-zero" here. >