Re: [PATCH -V7 02/14] hugetlbfs: don't use ERR_PTR with VM_FAULT* values

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:02:59PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 
> > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > The current use of VM_FAULT_* codes with ERR_PTR requires us to ensure
> > VM_FAULT_* values will not exceed MAX_ERRNO value.  Decouple the
> > VM_FAULT_* values from MAX_ERRNO.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, but is there a reason for using VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE_MASK since 
> that's the only VM_FAULT_* value that is greater than MAX_ERRNO?  The rest 
> of your patch set doesn't require this, so I think this change should just 
> be dropped.  (And PTR_ERR() still returns long, this wasn't fixed from my 
> original review.)
> 

The changes was done as per Andrew's request so that we don't have such hidden
dependencies on the values of VM_FAULT_*. Yes it can be a seperate patch from
the patchset. I have changed int to long as per your review.

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>