On Thu, 31 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > 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. > I think it confuscates the code, can't we just add something like BUILD_BUG_ON() to ensure that PTR_ERR() never uses values that are outside the bounds of MAX_ERRNO so we'll catch these at compile time if mm/hugetlb.c or anything else is ever extended to use such values? -- 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>