On 21.03.22 19:27, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 05:44:05PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 04:07:48PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> So the example you gave cannot possibly have that bit set. From what I >>> understand, it should be fine. But I have no real preference: I can also >>> just stick to the original patch, whatever you prefer. >> >> I think I'd prefer to stay on the safe side and stick with bit 2 as you >> originally proposed. If we need to support crazy numbers of swapfiles >> in future then we can revisit the idea of allocating bit 1. > > Sounds fine to me. David, feel free to keep my reviewed-by on the > original patch. > Thanks both, I'll add the following comment to the patch: "Note that we might be able to reuse bit 1, but reusing bit 1 turned out problematic in the past for PROT_NONE handling; so let's play safe and use another bit." -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
