From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180529145055.GA15148@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180529143126.GA19698@jordon-HP-15-Notebook-PC> <20180529145055.GA15148@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Souptick Joarder Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 21:25:05 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Change return type to vm_fault_t To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Al Viro , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Ross Zwisler , zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu, "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Dan Williams , Greg KH , Mark Rutland , riel@redhat.com, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, jschoenh@amazon.de, Kate Stewart , David Rientjes , tglx@linutronix.de, Peter Zijlstra , Mel Gorman , yang.s@alibaba-inc.com, Minchan Kim , linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 08:01:26PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: >> Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler. For >> now, this is just documenting that the function returns >> a VM_FAULT value rather than an errno. Once all instances >> are converted, vm_fault_t will become a distinct type. > > I don't believe you've checked this with sparse. > >> @@ -802,7 +802,8 @@ int fixup_user_fault(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm, >> bool *unlocked) >> { >> struct vm_area_struct *vma; >> - int ret, major = 0; >> + int major = 0; >> + vm_fault_t ret; >> >> if (unlocked) >> fault_flags |= FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY; > > ... > major |= ret & VM_FAULT_MAJOR; > > That should be throwing a warning. Sorry, but I verified again and didn't see similar warnings. steps followed - apply the patch make c=2 -j4 ( build for x86_64) looking for warnings in files because of this patch. The only error I am seeing "error: undefined identifier '__COUNTER__' " which is pointing to BUG(). There are few warnings but those are not related to this patch. In my test tree the final patch to create new vm_fault_t type is already applied. Do you want me to verify in some other way ?