On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:12:31PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 15:34 -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > > Today mprotect is implemented to support legacy mprotect behavior > > plus an extension for memory protection keys. Make it more generic > > so that it can support additional extensions in the future. > > > > This is done is preparation for adding a new system call for memory > > encyption keys. The intent is that the new encrypted mprotect will be > > another extension to legacy mprotect. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/mprotect.c | 10 ++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c > > index 68dc476310c0..56e64ef7931e 100644 > > --- a/mm/mprotect.c > > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c > > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ > > > > #include "internal.h" > > > > +#define NO_PKEY -1 > > This commit does not make anything more generic but it does take > away a magic number. The code change is senseful. The commit > message is nonsense. do_mprotect_ext() is intended to be the generic replacement for do_mprotect_pkey() which was added for protection keys. > > PS. Please use @linux.intel.com for LKML. Is this a request to use your @linux.intel.com email address when I'm posting to LKML's? > > /Jarkko
