On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:19:29PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> +int walk_page_range_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
> + unsigned long end, const struct mm_walk_ops *ops,
> + void *private)
> +{
> + struct mm_walk walk = {
> + .ops = ops,
> + .mm = vma->vm_mm,
> + .vma = vma,
> + .private = private,
> + };
> + int err;
> +
> + if (start >= end || !walk.mm)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (start < vma->vm_start || end > vma->vm_end)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + mmap_assert_locked(walk.mm);
> +
> + err = walk_page_test(start, end, &walk);
According to test_walk():
* @test_walk: caller specific callback function to determine whether
* we walk over the current vma or not. Returning 0 means
* "do page table walk over the current vma", returning
* a negative value means "abort current page table walk
* right now" and returning 1 means "skip the current vma"
Since this helper has vma passed in, not sure whether this is needed at
all?
walk_page_vma_range() sounds slightly better to me as it does look more
like an extension of walk_page_vma(), rather than sister version of
walk_page_range_novma() (which works for "no backing VMA" case). But no
strong opinion.
--
Peter Xu
