On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:48:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>On Fri, 1 May 2020 01:52:59 +0000 Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> When the condition is true, there are two possibilities: >>> >>>I'm struggling with this one. >>> >>>> 1. count == SWAP_MAP_BAD >>>> 2. count == (SWAP_MAP_MAX & COUNT_CONTINUED) == SWAP_MAP_SHMEM >>> >>>I'm not sure what 2. is trying to say. For a start, (SWAP_MAP_MAX & >>>COUNT_CONTINUED) is zero. I guess it meant "|"? >> >> Oops, you are right. It should be (SWAP_MAP_MAX | COUNT_CONTINUED). >> >> Sorry for the confusion. >> >>> >>>Also, the return value documentation says we return EINVAL for migration >>>entries. Where's that happening, or is the comment out of date? >>> >> >> Not paid attention to this. >> >> Take look into the code, I don't find a relationship between the swap count >> and migration. Seems we just make a migration entry but not duplicate it. >> If my understanding is correct. > >Per my understanding, one functionality of the error path is to catch >the behavior that shouldn't happen at all. For example, if >__swap_duplicate() is called for the migration entry because of some >race condition. > If __swap_duplicate() run for a migration entry, it returns since get_swap_entry() couldn't find a swap_info_struct. So the return value is -EINVAL. While when this situation would happen? And the race condition you mean is? >Best Regards, >Huang, Ying -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
