Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, dhillf@gmail.com,
        mhocko@suse.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V7 02/14] hugetlbfs: don't use ERR_PTR with VM_FAULT*
 values
In-Reply-To: <1338388739-22919-3-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205301801060.25774@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <1338388739-22919-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1338388739-22919-3-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 854
Lines: 19

On Wed, 30 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:

> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> The current use of VM_FAULT_* codes with ERR_PTR requires us to ensure
> VM_FAULT_* values will not exceed MAX_ERRNO value.  Decouple the
> VM_FAULT_* values from MAX_ERRNO.
> 

Yeah, but is there a reason for using VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE_MASK since 
that's the only VM_FAULT_* value that is greater than MAX_ERRNO?  The rest 
of your patch set doesn't require this, so I think this change should just 
be dropped.  (And PTR_ERR() still returns long, this wasn't fixed from my 
original review.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/