Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Feb 2022 18:41:20 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 05/13] mm/rmap: remove do_page_add_anon_rmap() | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
On 24.02.22 18:29, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 4:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> ... and instead convert page_add_anon_rmap() to accept flags. > > Can you fix the comment above the RMAP_xyz definitions? That one still says > > /* bitflags for do_page_add_anon_rmap() */ > > that tnow no longer exists.
Oh, yes sure.
> > Also, while this kind of code isn't unusual, I think it's still confusing: > >> + page_add_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr, 0); > > because when reading that, at least I go "what does 0 mean? Is it a > page offset, or what?"
Yes, I agree.
> > It might be a good idea to simply add a > > #define RMAP_PAGE 0x00 > > or something like that, just to have the callers all make it obvious > that we're talking about that RMAP_xyz bits - even if some of them may > be default. > > (Then using an enum of a special type is something we do if we want to > add extra clarity or sparse testing, I don't think there are enough > users for that to make sense) >
Actually, I thought about doing it similarly to what I did in page_alloc.c with fpi_t:
typedef int __bitwise fpi_t;
#define FPI_NONE ((__force fpi_t)0)
I can do something similar here.
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |