On 9/19/18 7:03 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
...
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This is indeed much better code structure. Thanks for persisting with
the series and following the suggestions.
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
Nit:
> @@ -2797,17 +2819,32 @@ int vm_munmap(unsigned long start, size_t len)
> if (down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem))
> return -EINTR;
>
> - ret = do_munmap(mm, start, len, &uf);
> - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + ret = __do_munmap(mm, start, len, &uf, downgrade);
> + /*
> + * Returning 1 indicates mmap_sem is downgraded.
> + * But 1 is not legal return value of vm_munmap() and munmap(), reset
> + * it to 0 before return.
> + */
> + if (ret == 1) {
> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + ret = 0;
> + } else
> + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +
I think the else part should also have { } per the kernel style?
