* Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@xxxxxxxxxx> [240213 14:37]:
...
> Asking to avoid any more iterations: these functions should call the
> currently defined ones or should replace them. For instance, should I
> do the following:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> ... uffd_mfill_lock()
> {
> return find_and_lock_dst_vma(...);
> }
> #else
> ...uffd_mfill_lock()
> {
> return lock_mm_and_find_dst_vma(...);
> }
> #endif
>
> or have the function replace
> find_and_lock_dst_vma()/lock_mm_and_find_dst_vma() ?
Since the two have the same prototype, then you can replace the function
names directly.
The other side should take the vma and use vma->vm_mm to get the mm to
unlock the mmap_lock in the !CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK. That way those
prototypes also match and can use the same names directly.
move_pages() requires unlocking two VMAs or one, so pass both VMAs
through and do the check in there. This, unfortunately means that one
of the VMAs will not be used in the !CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK case. You
could add an assert to ensure src_vma is locked prior to using dst_vma
to unlock the mmap_lock(), to avoid potential bot emails.
Thanks,
Liam
