On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 01:28:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2023 09:24:12 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > In all but one instance, mlock_future_check() is treated as a boolean > > function despite returning an error code. In one instance, this error code > > is ignored and replaced with -ENOMEM. > > > > This is confusing, and the inversion of true -> failure, false -> success > > is not warranted. Convert the function to a bool, lightly refactor and > > return true if the check passes, false if not. > > Yup. > > I don't think the name does a good job of conveying the > function's use. > > > - if (mlock_future_check(mm, vm_flags, len)) > > + if (!mlock_future_check(mm, vm_flags, len)) > > return -EAGAIN; > > if (!may_mlock_future(...)) > > or > > if (!mlock_future_ok(...)) > > ? > > Yeah I struggled with this, because the check only triggers if VM_LOCKED. I was originally toying with can_mlock_future() but of course, it also returns true if !VM_LOCKED... I think your suggestion of mlock_future_ok() works well, could you change it to that? Thanks!
