On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 12:59 PM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> [240705 15:27]:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 02:27:08PM GMT, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > > Clean up the code by changing the munmap operation to use a structure
> > > for the accounting and munmap variables.
> > >
> > > Since remove_mt() is only called in one location and the contents will
> > > be reduce to almost nothing. The remains of the function can be added
> > > to vms_complete_munmap_vmas().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > mm/internal.h | 6 ++++
> > > mm/mmap.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> > > 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> > > index f1e6dea2efcf..8cbbbe7d40f3 100644
> > > --- a/mm/internal.h
> > > +++ b/mm/internal.h
> > > @@ -1488,12 +1488,18 @@ struct vma_munmap_struct {
> > > struct vma_iterator *vmi;
> > > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > struct vm_area_struct *vma; /* The first vma to munmap */
> > > + struct vm_area_struct *next; /* vma after the munmap area */
> > > + struct vm_area_struct *prev; /* vma before the munmap area */
> >
> > I mean this is about as pedantic as it gets, and, admittedly an annoying
> > comment to make, but the ordering... can't we at least put prev before
> > next? ;)
>
> I can do that, no problem.
> ...
>
> >
> > This is a big improvement overall, very fiddly code.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks!
