Re: [PATCH -V7 02/14] hugetlbfs: don't use ERR_PTR with VM_FAULT*values

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 31 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:

> > 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.)
> > 
> 
> The changes was done as per Andrew's request so that we don't have such hidden
> dependencies on the values of VM_FAULT_*. Yes it can be a seperate patch from
> the patchset. I have changed int to long as per your review.
> 

I think it confuscates the code, can't we just add something like 
BUILD_BUG_ON() to ensure that PTR_ERR() never uses values that are outside 
the bounds of MAX_ERRNO so we'll catch these at compile time if 
mm/hugetlb.c or anything else is ever extended to use such values?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/