From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f200.google.com (mail-pf0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4DD6B0253 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:07:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f200.google.com with SMTP id 63so297725574pfx.3 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 17:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4440.biz.mail.alibaba.com (out4440.biz.mail.alibaba.com. [47.88.44.40]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ro7si17772955pab.251.2016.07.16.17.07.10 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 17:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <578ACD99.2070807@emindsoft.com.cn> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 08:13:13 +0800 From: Chen Gang MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: gup: Re-define follow_page_mask output parameter page_mask usage References: <1468084625-26999-1-git-send-email-chengang@emindsoft.com.cn> <20160711141702.fb1879707aa2bcb290133a43@linux-foundation.org> <578522CE.9060905@emindsoft.com.cn> <20160713075024.GB28723@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20160713075024.GB28723@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , vbabka@suse.cz, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, mingo@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, jack@suse.cz, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, jmarchan@redhat.com, dingel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chen Gang On 7/13/16 15:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 13-07-16 01:03:10, Chen Gang wrote: >> On 7/12/16 05:17, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 01:17:05 +0800 chengang@emindsoft.com.cn wrote: >>> >>>> For a pure output parameter: >>>> >>>> - When callee fails, the caller should not assume the output parameter >>>> is still valid. >>>> >>>> - And callee should not assume the pure output parameter must be >>>> provided by caller -- caller has right to pass NULL when caller does >>>> not care about it. >>> >>> Sorry, I don't think this one is worth merging really. >>> >> >> OK, thanks, I can understand. >> >> It will be better if provide more details: e.g. >> >> - This patch is incorrect, or the comments is not correct. >> >> - The patch is worthless, at present. > > I would say the patch is not really needed. The code you are touching > works just fine and there is no reason to touch it unless this is a part > of a larger change where future changes would be easier to > review/implement. > OK, thanks. I shall try to find other kinds of patches in linux/include, next. :-) -- Chen Gang (e??a??) Managing Natural Environments is the Duty of Human Beings. -- 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: email@kvack.org