On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:47:02 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:56:17PM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:17:40 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:23:14AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: [...] > > > (I wonder if that'd be better as a typedef tbh?) > > > > Something like below? > > > > typedef void *madvise_walk_arg; > > > > I think that could make the code easier to read. But I feel the void pointer > > is also not very bad for the current simple static functions use case, so I'd > > like keep this as is if you don't mind. > > > > Please let me know if I'm missing your point. > > No to be clear I meant the: > > int (*visit)(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > struct vm_area_struct **prev, unsigned long start, > unsigned long end, unsigned long arg) > > Function pointer. Thanks for clarifying! And I agree this is a good idea. > > But this is not a big deal and let's leave it as-is for now, we can address > this later potentially! :) Agreed, either! :) [...] > Thanks for being so flexible on the feedback! Appreciated :>) Thank you for your nice and helpful reviews :) Thanks, SJ
