* Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> [230414 13:26]:
> * Edgecombe, Rick P <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx> [230414 12:27]:
> > On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 10:57 -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:<br>
> > > + tmp = mas_next(&mas, ULONG_MAX);
> > > + if (tmp && (tmp->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN)) {
> >
> > Why also check VM_GROWSDOWN here (and VM_GROWSUP below)?
> > vm_start/end_gap() already have checks inside.
>
> An artifact of a plan that was later abandoned.
>
> >
> > > + if (vm_start_gap(tmp) < gap + length - 1) {
> > > + low_limit = tmp->vm_end;
> > > + mas_reset(&mas);
> > > + goto retry;
> > > + }
> > > + } else {
> > > + tmp = mas_prev(&mas, 0);
> > > + if (tmp && (tmp->vm_flags & VM_GROWSUP) &&
> > > + vm_end_gap(tmp) > gap) {
> > > + low_limit = vm_end_gap(tmp);
> > > + mas_reset(&mas);
> > > + goto retry;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > Could it be like this?
>
> Yes, I'll make this change. Thanks for the suggestion.
Wait, I like how it is.
In my version, if there is a stack that is VM_GROWSDOWN there, but does
not intercept the gap, then I won't check the prev.. in yours, we will
never avoid checking prev.
>
> >
> > tmp = mas_next(&mas, ULONG_MAX);
> > if (tmp && vm_start_gap(tmp) < gap + length - 1) {
> > low_limit = tmp->vm_end;
> > mas_reset(&mas);
> > goto retry;
> > }
> > } else {
> > tmp = mas_prev(&mas, 0);
> > if (tmp && vm_end_gap(tmp) > gap) {
> > low_limit = vm_end_gap(tmp);
> > mas_reset(&mas);
> > goto retry;
> > }
> > }
> >
