Re: [PATCH -V7 02/14] hugetlbfs: don't use ERR_PTR with VM_FAULT* values

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 30 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:

> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The current use of VM_FAULT_* codes with ERR_PTR requires us to ensure
> VM_FAULT_* values will not exceed MAX_ERRNO value.  Decouple the
> VM_FAULT_* values from MAX_ERRNO.
> 

Yeah, but is there a reason for using VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE_MASK since 
that's the only VM_FAULT_* value that is greater than MAX_ERRNO?  The rest 
of your patch set doesn't require this, so I think this change should just 
be dropped.  (And PTR_ERR() still returns long, this wasn't fixed from my 
original review.)

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]