On 3/16/23 12:02 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 06:57:13PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>> Define uffd_wp_range() for the cases when CONFIG_USERFAULTFD isn't set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
>> index b680c0ec8b85..fd1a1ecdb5f6 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
>> @@ -182,6 +182,14 @@ extern int userfaultfd_wp_async(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
>>
>> #else /* CONFIG_USERFAULTFD */
>>
>> +extern inline long uffd_wp_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
>
> static inline
I'll update.
>
>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> + unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
>> + bool enable_wp)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>
> I didn't see uffd_wp_range() defined in the previous patch.
> Could be a rebase issue?
>
> In any case, the stub should be defined in the same patch as the actual
> function in order not to break bisectability.
This 2/7 patch is a preparatory patch for 3/7 patch. I'll merge both then.
>
>> /* mm helpers */
>> static inline vm_fault_t handle_userfault(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>> unsigned long reason)
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
>
--
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum
