From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx170.postini.com [74.125.245.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 162946B005C for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 01:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 31 May 2012 05:40:00 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q4V5cke430539830 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:38:46 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q4V5jmHL026797 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:45:49 +1000 Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:15:33 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH -V7 02/14] hugetlbfs: don't use ERR_PTR with VM_FAULT* values Message-ID: <20120531054533.GE24855@skywalker.linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1338388739-22919-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1338388739-22919-3-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, dhillf@gmail.com, mhocko@suse.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli 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" > > > > 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@kvack.org. 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: email@kvack.org