On Jun 23, 2022, at 2:57 PM, Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
I addressed these issues in the following patches - I messed up slightly the
patch order.
I will address these two into patch 1.
Regards,
Nadav
