From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx171.postini.com [74.125.245.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 107FE6B005C for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 21:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dakp5 with SMTP id p5so647880dak.14 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 18:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:02:59 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH -V7 02/14] hugetlbfs: don't use ERR_PTR with VM_FAULT* values In-Reply-To: <1338388739-22919-3-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <1338388739-22919-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1338388739-22919-3-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, dhillf@gmail.com, mhocko@suse.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli On Wed, 30 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" > > The current use of VM_FAULT_* codes with ERR_PTR requires us to ensure > VM_FAULT_* values will not exceed MAX_ERRNO value. Decouple the > VM_FAULT_* values from MAX_ERRNO. > Yeah, but is there a reason for using VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE_MASK since that's the only VM_FAULT_* value that is greater than MAX_ERRNO? The rest of your patch set doesn't require this, so I think this change should just be dropped. (And PTR_ERR() still returns long, this wasn't fixed from my original review.) -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org