Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] mm: remove boolean output parameters from folio_pte_batch_ext()

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

> 
> @ptentp: Pointer to a COPY of the first page table entry whose flags we update
>           if appropriate.

+ * @ptentp: Pointer to a COPY of the first page table entry whose flags this
+ *         function updates based on @flags if appropriate.


> 
> And then update the description of folio_pte_batch_flags() both the brief one to
> add 'updates ptentp to set flags if appropriate' and maybe in the larger
> description bit.

Not in the brief one; the other description, including the excessive parameter doc
will be enough.

FWIW, I briefly though passing in an arg struct, or returning the pte instead (and returning
the nr_pages using a parameter), but hated both. More than these two stupid pte*.

> 
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>    	VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!pte_present(pte), folio);
>>>>    	VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio) || max_nr < 1, folio);
>>>>    	VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(page_folio(pfn_to_page(pte_pfn(pte))) != folio, folio);
>>>> +	VM_WARN_ON(virt_addr_valid(ptentp) && PageTable(virt_to_page(ptentp)));
>>>
>>> Hm so if !virt_addr_valid(ptentp) we're ok? :P
>>
>> I had the same question when writing that. Obviously,
>> PageTable(virt_to_page(ptentp)) faulted when called on something on the
>> stack. (ran into that ... :) )
>>
>> Maybe "VM_WARN_ON(virt_addr_valid(ptentp));" would work as well, but I am
>> not sure how that function behaves on all architectures ...
> 
> Well you wouldn't want to limit callers to only working on stack values...
> 
> I guess just add a comment, or rather update the the one below to something like:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Ensure this is a pointer to a copy not a pointer into a page table.
> 	 * If this is a stack value, it won't be a valid virtual address, but that's
> 	 * fine because it also cannot be pointing into the page table.
> 	 */
> 
> Which would clarify.

Yes, I'll use that, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb