Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 15:48:53 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Cc:     ying.huang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/swapfile.c: count won't be bigger than
 SWAP_MAP_MAX
Message-Id: <20200501154853.bca4cfb7b2558bd43a4942f3@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200501015259.32237-3-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
References: <20200501015259.32237-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
        <20200501015259.32237-3-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri,  1 May 2020 01:52:59 +0000 Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> wrote:

> When the condition is true, there are two possibilities:

I'm struggling with this one.

>    1. count == SWAP_MAP_BAD
>    2. count == (SWAP_MAP_MAX & COUNT_CONTINUED) == SWAP_MAP_SHMEM

I'm not sure what 2. is trying to say.  For a start, (SWAP_MAP_MAX &
COUNT_CONTINUED) is zero.  I guess it meant "|"?

Also, the return value documentation says we return EINVAL for migration
entries.  Where's that happening, or is the comment out of date?

> The first case would be filtered by the first if in __swap_duplicate().
> 
> And the second case means this swap entry is for shmem. Since we never
> do another duplication for shmem swap entry. This won't happen neither.