Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 May 2023 13:28:51 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm/mmap: refactor mlock_future_check() |
| |
On Mon, 22 May 2023 09:24:12 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> wrote:
> In all but one instance, mlock_future_check() is treated as a boolean > function despite returning an error code. In one instance, this error code > is ignored and replaced with -ENOMEM. > > This is confusing, and the inversion of true -> failure, false -> success > is not warranted. Convert the function to a bool, lightly refactor and > return true if the check passes, false if not.
Yup.
I don't think the name does a good job of conveying the function's use.
> - if (mlock_future_check(mm, vm_flags, len)) > + if (!mlock_future_check(mm, vm_flags, len)) > return -EAGAIN;
if (!may_mlock_future(...))
or
if (!mlock_future_ok(...))
?
| |