Date:   Sun, 5 Feb 2023 22:18:30 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm/arch: Fix a few collide definition on private use
 of VM_FAULT_*
Message-ID: <Y+BxhuGUx1K+3XHb@xz-m1.local>
References: <20230205231704.909536-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <Y+BFjQDBIFq5ih+t@casper.infradead.org>
 <Y+BPy3jFcHqOnWL0@x1n>
 <Y+BrJhxeJbAp49QE@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y+BrJhxeJbAp49QE@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:51:18AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> That wasn't what I meant.  I meant putting VM_FAULT_BADMAP and
> VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV in mm_types.h.  Not having "Here is a range of reserved
> arch private ones".

VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV is there already; I assume you meant adding them all
directly into vm_fault_reason.

Then I don't think it's a good idea..

Currently vm_fault_reason is a clear interface for handle_mm_fault() for
not only arch pffault handlers but also soft faults like GUP.

If handle_mm_fault() doesn't return VM_FAULT_BADMAP at all, I don't think
we should have it as public API at all.  When arch1 people reading the
VM_FAULT_ documents, it shouldn't care about some fault reason that only
happens with arch2.  Gup shouldn't care about it either.

Logically a new page fault handler should handle all the retval of
vm_fault_reason afaiu.  That shouldn't include e.g. VM_FAULT_BADMAP either.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu