On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:02:48 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:23:12AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > The logic for checking if a given madvise() request for a single memory > > range can skip real work, namely madvise_do_behavior(), is duplicated in > > do_madvise() and vector_madvise(). Split out the logic to a function > > and resue it. > > NIT: typo :) > > > > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > madvise_set_anon_name() seems to do something similar, but somewhat > differently... not sure if you address this in a later commit but worth > looking at too! Thank you for sharing the good finding! I don't have a plan to address that for now. > > Anyway this seems sane, so: > > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> Thank you for your review! > > Note nits! > > > --- > > mm/madvise.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c > > index 611db868ae38..764ec1f2475b 100644 > > --- a/mm/madvise.c > > +++ b/mm/madvise.c > > @@ -1640,6 +1640,27 @@ static bool is_valid_madvise(unsigned long start, size_t len_in, int behavior) > > return true; > > } > > > > +/* > > + * madvise_should_skip() - Return if an madivse request can skip real works. > > NIT: 'real works' sounds strange. > > I'd say something like 'if the specified behaviour is invalid or nothing > would occur, we skip this operation. In the former case we return an > error.' Thanks for this nice suggestion. I will updte so in the next version. Thanks, SJ [...]
