On 24.02.22 18:29, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> ... and instead convert page_add_anon_rmap() to accept flags. > > Can you fix the comment above the RMAP_xyz definitions? That one still says > > /* bitflags for do_page_add_anon_rmap() */ > > that tnow no longer exists. Oh, yes sure. > > Also, while this kind of code isn't unusual, I think it's still confusing: > >> + page_add_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr, 0); > > because when reading that, at least I go "what does 0 mean? Is it a > page offset, or what?" Yes, I agree. > > It might be a good idea to simply add a > > #define RMAP_PAGE 0x00 > > or something like that, just to have the callers all make it obvious > that we're talking about that RMAP_xyz bits - even if some of them may > be default. > > (Then using an enum of a special type is something we do if we want to > add extra clarity or sparse testing, I don't think there are enough > users for that to make sense) > Actually, I thought about doing it similarly to what I did in page_alloc.c with fpi_t: typedef int __bitwise fpi_t; #define FPI_NONE ((__force fpi_t)0) I can do something similar here. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
