Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:     paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org,
        dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, hpa@zytor.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/24] mm: make pte_unmap_same compatible with SPF
In-Reply-To: <fd9eedf4-b885-d8f5-2daa-4cc450e72427@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803280318440.69353@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <1520963994-28477-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1520963994-28477-7-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803271417510.31115@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <fd9eedf4-b885-d8f5-2daa-4cc450e72427@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:

> >> @@ -2913,7 +2921,8 @@ int do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >>  	int exclusive = 0;
> >>  	int ret = 0;
> > 
> > Initialization is now unneeded.
> 
> I'm sorry, what "initialization" are you talking about here ?
> 

The initialization of the ret variable.

@@ -2913,7 +2921,8 @@ int do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 	int exclusive = 0;
 	int ret = 0;
 
-	if (!pte_unmap_same(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))
+	ret = pte_unmap_same(vmf);
+	if (ret)
 		goto out;
 
 	entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);

"ret" is immediately set to the return value of pte_unmap_same(), so there 
is no need to initialize it to 0.