On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:50:34AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> @@ -1891,7 +1902,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_continue(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, unsigned long arg)
> if (mmget_not_zero(ctx->mm)) {
> ret = mcopy_continue(ctx->mm, uffdio_continue.range.start,
> uffdio_continue.range.len,
> - &ctx->mmap_changing);
> + &ctx->mmap_changing, 0);
Shall we consistently use either 0 or UFFD_FLAGS_NONE? I'd go for 0
directly since that's clearer on having "nothing" as flag.
> mmput(ctx->mm);
> } else {
> return -ESRCH;
[...]
> 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)
> {
> return __mcopy_atomic(dst_mm, start, 0, len, MCOPY_ATOMIC_ZEROPAGE,
> mmap_changing, 0);
I think you agreed on passing the uffd_flags into __mcopy_atomic() (and
also below). Is it forgotten or plan changed?
Thanks,
> }
>
> 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)
> {
> return __mcopy_atomic(dst_mm, start, 0, len, MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE,
> mmap_changing, 0);
> }
--
Peter Xu
