On Jun 21, 2022, at 8:29 AM, Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ⚠ External Email
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 04:34:45PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> @@ -683,30 +681,33 @@ static __always_inline ssize_t __mcopy_atomic(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
>>
>> ssize_t mcopy_atomic(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, unsigned long dst_start,
>> unsigned long src_start, unsigned long len,
>> - atomic_t *mmap_changing, __u64 mode)
>> + atomic_t *mmap_changing, uffd_flags_t uffd_flags)
>> {
>> return __mcopy_atomic(dst_mm, dst_start, src_start, len,
>> - MCOPY_ATOMIC_NORMAL, mmap_changing, mode);
>> + MCOPY_ATOMIC_NORMAL, mmap_changing, uffd_flags);
>> }
>>
>> ssize_t mfill_zeropage(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, unsigned long start,
>> - unsigned long len, atomic_t *mmap_changing)
>> + unsigned long len, atomic_t *mmap_changing,
>> + uffd_flags_t uffd_flags)
>
> Should this be fed into the last parameter of __mcopy_atomic() below?
>
>> {
>> return __mcopy_atomic(dst_mm, start, 0, len, MCOPY_ATOMIC_ZEROPAGE,
>> mmap_changing, 0);
>> }
>>
>> ssize_t mcopy_continue(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, unsigned long start,
>> - unsigned long len, atomic_t *mmap_changing)
>> + unsigned long len, atomic_t *mmap_changing,
>> + uffd_flags_t uffd_flags)
>
> Same question here..
Yes it should. I think I will add flags for CONTINUE/ZERO ACCESS/WRITE
just for consistency, even if we eventually decide to disregard them.
