On 03/03/2020 12:04 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > >> This adds the following new VMA flag wrappers which will replace current >> open encodings across various places. This should not have any functional >> implications. >> >> vma_is_dontdump() >> vma_is_noreserve() >> vma_is_special() >> vma_is_locked() >> vma_is_mergeable() >> vma_is_softdirty() >> vma_is_thp() >> vma_is_nothp() > > Why?? Please don't. I am not at all keen on your 1/3 and 2/3 (some > of us actually like to see what the VM_ flags are where they're used, > without having to chase through scattered wrappers hiding them), > but this 3/3 particularly upset me. Can understand your reservations regarding 3/3. But I had called that out in the series cover letter that this patch can be dropped if related code churn is not justified. But 1/3 does create a default flag combination for VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS with a value that is used by multiple platforms at the moment. This is very similar to the existing VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS which has a default value. Then why cannot VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS have one ? More over this also saves some code duplication across platforms. Regarding the patch 2/3, when there are many existing VMA flag overrides like VM_STACK_FLAGS, VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE_SETUP, VM_INIT_DEF_MASK etc why cannot a commonly used VMA flag combination with a very specific meaning (i.e accessibility) get one. Do you have any particular concern here which I might be missing. > > There is a good reason for the (hideously named) is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma): > to save "#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE"s all over (though I suspect the > same could have been achieved much more nicely by #define VM_HUGETLB 0); > but hiding all flags in vma_is_whatever()s is counter-productive churn. Makes sense, I can understand your reservation here. > > Improved readability? Not to my eyes. As mentioned before, I dont feel strongly about patch 3/3 and will drop.
