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 BB9C3E6FE31 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 22:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4EE478D001E; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 18:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 49F7F8D000A; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 18:38:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 38D9A8D001E; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 18:38:42 -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 288658D000A for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 18:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE03914074D for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 22:38:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81276585642.22.4D33060 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53781A000D for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 22:38:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=gVOU3bZE; spf=none (imf15.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1695681520; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=0fDLKihRWQLrfuSj3jvyM87kiZ324I5dyke0dlSl6/U=; b=akiALPUKW5FfW4ciAWk/a2riIZeSEBANkBKAn6EGTKLKHsF7bkZrxwaC1DGd+XNJQL21h+ Bg55z2wdrSWC1HdszqcPClpsE+u2yEtbYFlY1MvQcL2dIM01B/gQ2sGwJ0n6FOx/ETvlCC kiw8S43bV0oFuCSfsRvBV9aVmiM1fl0= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1695681520; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=PFt0kIPcxxOdFddJBaFX4amQOWmOusXk+JIKGsuxJ7ne51kgrzYw1h/tZSA83GBLMyabX/ xyArFEjmVMBn0N6Ftb/aBcc63Yy3E4J/vVSv8j1y7OCV9iyWuatN+LZIX9cZgPviOVi5ls 6n0q/xKbiiu7ERYbiuoh20z1digpdy8= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=gVOU3bZE; spf=none (imf15.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org; dmarc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=0fDLKihRWQLrfuSj3jvyM87kiZ324I5dyke0dlSl6/U=; b=gVOU3bZEWFPlb/ZscqM+AjKdYV bCmLwRJ+59OVEzBJriTe2B7GbFwbQ6vEVu9iPU7z0GJ2T6cQ8ENFzjfR9YCl4aUUD7fr/my2J2C+n zSj36KmLk3alHQJqWSesv90jvAZgD+6Alq+PVVVYsmRVHvrf9SgLPjw+Hqgm6i26FW7Hzi+QP/1wW tbjtLgdagf77505qd5gO0L9Rja0Zm1fFfiC1274yQhTS6PpBAO6fsZreRVAnJqBKaOANLNqBPHDbc 4StzGMWtGZwnKGvWLytSfTmNf0h141i7DtUYN5cL/52Q9Mt1DIPxyCtAaqWL7LosUXNyXLTwTIHE2 yKDoHDaQ==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qkuDZ-0043Wy-Lo; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 22:38:18 +0000 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:38:17 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Christoph Lameter , Mike Kravetz , David Hildenbrand , Suren Baghdasaryan , Yang Shi , Sidhartha Kumar , Vishal Moola , Kefeng Wang , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tejun Heo , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] mempolicy trivia: use pgoff_t in shared mempolicy tree Message-ID: References: <2d872cef-7787-a7ca-10e-9d45a64c80b4@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 53781A000D X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: qkibnm9xjf3d1d96f1xpmshjt4se4dwu X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-HE-Tag: 1695681520-121697 X-HE-Meta: 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 JwaXl1o6 oTS4wq9LiCftvddQyX/WuDOPsbEUgFr39C3zQuHTQdj5nRbP7vx94YUYTU1tC9WBn4tKLCzQFVdGLC8RjQWcoShLK9OHt7q7wjt/no2YARtPjE2wRXmFRlEvf0AHu7RDX/ftSJHWQOsP6p6kaEX4PXkevRJrIml8QaC1AfcKTiKXb52ELX7AwiV3NvuVh7QE9KJyWzYLH2GHnlu5B4FGs4N0BbmsrukSldawjfVCD+PmOR0ngYj4AqMKv7Rb4viWXhkGz 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, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:31:40PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:28:14AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Prefer the more explicit "pgoff_t" to "unsigned long" when dealing with > > a shared mempolicy tree. Delete confusing comment about pseudo mm vmas. > > Yes, with three quibbles Actually, a fourth has occurred to me > > struct sp_node { > > struct rb_node nd; > > - unsigned long start, end; > > + pgoff_t start, end; > > struct mempolicy *policy; > > }; This data structure is unused outside mempolicy.c today, and you don't add any. Perhaps we could move it from mempolicy.h to mempolicy.c?