Re: [PATCH 3/3] access_error API cleanup

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 10/05/2010 12:53 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> access_error() already takes error_code as an argument, so there is
> no need for an additional write flag.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/fault.c |    6 +++---
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> index b355b92..844d46f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> @@ -915,9 +915,9 @@ spurious_fault(unsigned long error_code, unsigned long address)
>  int show_unhandled_signals = 1;
>  
>  static inline int
> -access_error(unsigned long error_code, int write, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +access_error(unsigned long error_code, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  {
> -	if (write) {
> +	if (error_code & PF_WRITE) {
>  		/* write, present and write, not present: */
>  		if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)))
>  			return 1;
> @@ -1110,7 +1110,7 @@ retry:
>  	 * we can handle it..
>  	 */
>  good_area:
> -	if (unlikely(access_error(error_code, write, vma))) {
> +	if (unlikely(access_error(error_code, vma))) {
>  		bad_area_access_error(regs, error_code, address);
>  		return;
>  	}

Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>

I was going to put it into the x86 tree, but being part of a larger
series it gets messy.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.