From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178CBC77B75 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 63123900003; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:28:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 5E1AE900002; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:28:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4B352900003; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:28:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CB1900002 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:28:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5521404C7 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80819029830.16.547DA9A Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119E7180006 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=bCTwi6wO; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1684787334; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=yuNAoST1X2xjIfj2PaynTEcbw+KRl7Ku2io9NkBwo3M=; b=nSNDuwXVJH/3IRCtKA+VH3lvf4JF4ItGHeCHsJFkR3XRtOD58ZeJEmhJN2gfbZq11DUFOp sHTTcQ7GiR0FkF2gaCj/TJFKcz9dA4U1/EzFKLp0OpgKcPnWq/No5og7UP+jQmvZ5D20t8 Dd18ZfVJzd5FxpDaESsQk5OiS5RjsYg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=bCTwi6wO; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1684787334; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=Ry9VY6uFbjUv5KQODwfSPtqH5XEJYRFIu53PfyVW7ZMm8xFyahpvNTchUo6Uwbl8kPaUsZ XBnO4S9HoBbEn7nLn0XiFL22/oiEu34/TGlNyLpoMKsfkqnOH7/SC/qsb8VRFdOvNIvT9b 8LV586hKPbRGZjLQkbYZKchLZXdzTKI= Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5C22621D4; Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF737C433D2; Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1684787332; bh=bGU6saSjKLHRGrxa9d+ZLVwV/rjNtkPuPdSib3psZA0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bCTwi6wOM3T/5BM17n6r42tiV2BU9to0RAZrCsCPcb6ttCyDtYMWZtVt4NQdNEkdy pSLmlDfhzxsqRfkkGUqWlN2oUQRMlc5MCC1uhH5YC9q0kHrxucNOJwramUAvPKU4va 4AfwmaD5HPOjsBd1scfVKU6DK1FEKE8BOtWqCTn8= Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 13:28:51 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , "Liam R . Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmap: refactor mlock_future_check() Message-Id: <20230522132851.ccc9fafac91d7eb9ba922e94@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20230522082412.56685-1-lstoakes@gmail.com> References: <20230522082412.56685-1-lstoakes@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 119E7180006 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Stat-Signature: x7mfpn1betgr3s1m85drn7g1c3yk1r8a X-HE-Tag: 1684787333-535866 X-HE-Meta: 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 x4fVhgTV 5ofy3IN5pLAgqm7vYnTOjoCIjLC+FImfFExsuGZLQDKGKhDLRQucAEdZCY+fmNhu7cNAMpVBqsGe6STOnYpwU2pVHlwdRPPsrMDPtOiy0p88R0hKbtZEvcyzF1HTjwKRZfXyeDjQMqn6XK2Nv4d8A+27i0HcMsPg9/JCPXmTWaLaUKqGxAtmlhAsJJ845g9Zu5Bozrtzy+53eDL2qyNAvmaNSZhVENcs/pL0D6mWrg0x4lS6knGtt7h2QDQLkT4AuO65hUJttRO7EjakmMax84uZxZmiLidszCL8vD9GqdyCXYAjCd+MTjpEDUoJ5lK2dPOR3QI2YBbdFu3shDqYeuWcK1e7YWA6TEWmb7MjaJeQPUdx3+lak3W5l30CJgKAmVTfoJQgv6/amKqY= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 22 May 2023 09:24:12 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > In all but one instance, mlock_future_check() is treated as a boolean > function despite returning an error code. In one instance, this error code > is ignored and replaced with -ENOMEM. > > This is confusing, and the inversion of true -> failure, false -> success > is not warranted. Convert the function to a bool, lightly refactor and > return true if the check passes, false if not. Yup. I don't think the name does a good job of conveying the function's use. > - if (mlock_future_check(mm, vm_flags, len)) > + if (!mlock_future_check(mm, vm_flags, len)) > return -EAGAIN; if (!may_mlock_future(...)) or if (!mlock_future_ok(...)) ?