On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:02:59PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > 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.) > The changes was done as per Andrew's request so that we don't have such hidden dependencies on the values of VM_FAULT_*. Yes it can be a seperate patch from the patchset. I have changed int to long as per your review. -aneesh -- 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>