Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 17:10:48 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     Cheng Li <lic121@chinatelecom.cn>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: use mem_map_offset instead of mem_map_next
Message-Id: <20220906171048.1cd24a27b71ded17f89ddb00@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <Yxd+Nz1wAwiIOWsd@monkey>
References: <1662358159-22780-1-git-send-email-lic121@chinatelecom.cn>
        <Yxd+Nz1wAwiIOWsd@monkey>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:07:03 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:

> On 09/05/22 06:09, Cheng Li wrote:
> > To handle discontiguity case, mem_map_next() has a parameter named
> > `offset`. As a function caller, one would be confused why "get
> > next entry" needs a parameter named "offset". The other drawback of
> > mem_map_next() is that the callers must take care of the map between
> > parameter "iter" and "offset", otherwise we may get an hole or
> > duplication during iteration. So we use mem_map_offset instead of
> > mem_map_next.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cheng Li <lic121@chinatelecom.cn>
> > Fixes: 69d177c2fc70 ("hugetlbfs: handle pages higher order than MAX_ORDER")
> 
> The Fixes tag implies there is a user visible bug.  I do not believe this is
> the case here.  Is there a user visible bug?

A Fixes: with a cc:stable would indicate a user-visible bug.  But IMO a
bare Fixes: is simply a when-to-stop guide to backporters - a
convenience.  And, I suppose, it has some documentation benefit.

And if people are really that interested, they can read the dang
changelog ;)