On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 05:44:05PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 04:07:48PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > So the example you gave cannot possibly have that bit set. From what I > > understand, it should be fine. But I have no real preference: I can also > > just stick to the original patch, whatever you prefer. > > I think I'd prefer to stay on the safe side and stick with bit 2 as you > originally proposed. If we need to support crazy numbers of swapfiles > in future then we can revisit the idea of allocating bit 1. Sounds fine to me. David, feel free to keep my reviewed-by on the original patch. -- Catalin
