On 10/17/24 2:47 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 17.10.24 23:28, Alistair Popple wrote:
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 16.10.24 22:22, John Hubbard wrote:
...
+ if (rc != -EAGAIN && rc != 0)
+ unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pinned_pages);
+
} while (rc == -EAGAIN);
Wouldn't it be cleaner to simply have here after the loop (possibly
even after the memalloc_pin_restore())
if (rc)
unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pinned_pages);
But maybe I am missing something.
I initially thought the same thing but I'm not sure it is
correct. Consider what happens when __get_user_pages_locked() fails
earlier in the loop. In this case it will have bailed out of the loop
with rc <= 0 but we shouldn't call unpin_user_pages().
doh. yes. Thanks for catching that, Alistair! I actually considered
it during the first draft, too, but got tunnel vision during the
review, sigh.
Ah, I see what you mean, I primarily only stared at the diff.
We should likely avoid using nr_pinned_pages as a temporary variable that
can hold an error value.
OK, I still want to defer all the pretty refactoring ideas into some
future effort, so for now, let's just leave v1 alone except for fixing
the typo in the comment, yes?
I'll still send out a 2-patch series with that, plus a suitably
modified fix for the memfd case too.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
