Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] man2/fincore.2: document general description about fincore(2)

[Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 01:59 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 12:08:12PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 07/07/2014 11:00 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> >>> +.SH RETURN VALUE
> >>> +On success,
> >>> +.BR fincore ()
> >>> +returns 0.
> >>> +On error, \-1 is returned, and
> >>> +.I errno
> >>> +is set appropriately.
> >>
> >> Is this accurate?  From reading the syscall itself, it looked like it
> >> did this:
> >>
> >>> + * Return value is the number of pages whose data is stored in fc->buffer.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static long do_fincore(struct fincore_control *fc, int nr_pages)
> >>
> >> and:
> >>
> >>> +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(fincore, int, fd, loff_t, start, long, nr_pages,
> >> ...
> >>> +	while (fc.nr_pages > 0) {
> >>> +		memset(fc.buffer, 0, fc.buffer_size);
> >>> +		ret = do_fincore(&fc, min(step, fc.nr_pages));
> >>> +		/* Reached the end of the file */
> >>> +		if (ret == 0)
> >>> +			break;
> >>> +		if (ret < 0)
> >>> +			break;
> >> ...
> >>> +	}
> >> ...
> >>> +	return ret;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> Which seems that for a given loop of do_fincore(), you might end up
> >> returning the result of that *single* iteration of do_fincore() instead
> >> of the aggregate of the entire syscall.
> >>
> >> So, it can return <0 on failure, 0 on success, or also an essentially
> >> random >0 number on success too.
> > 
> > We don't break this while loop if do_fincore() returned a positive value
> > unless copy_to_user() fails. And in that case ret is set to -EFAULT.
> > So I think sys_fincore() never returns a positive value.
> 
> OK, that makes sense as I'm reading it again.
> 
> >> Why not just use the return value for something useful instead of
> >> hacking in the extras->nr_entries stuff?
> > 
> > Hmm, I got the opposite complaint previously, where we shouldn't
> > interpret the return value differently depending on the flag.
> > And I'd like to keep the extra argument for future extensibility.
> > For example, if we want to collect pages only with a specific
> > set of page flags, this extra argument will be necessary.
> 
> Couldn't it simply be the number of elements that it wrote in to the
> buffer, or even the number of bytes?

Yes, returning the number of elements looks clearer to me.

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>