Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm/gup: move gup_can_follow_protnone() to gup.c
From: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
Date: Mon Aug 24 2026 - 11:05:56 EST
On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 03:17:38PM +0300, Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) wrote:
> gup_can_follow_protnone() is defined in include/linux/mm.h but only used
> by mm/gup.c.
>
> First, there is no reason to have it in already gigantic header.
>
> Next, the upcoming refactoring of userfaultfd flags will make
> gup_can_follow_protnone() depend on userfaultfd_k.h which would cause a
> cyclic header dependency.
>
> Move gup_can_follow_protnone() to mm/gup.c.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Assisted-by: copilot:claude-opus-5
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>
LGTM so:
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/mm.h | 38 --------------------------------------
> mm/gup.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 0829e0d3b2d1..4daf9cd6ae8e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -4860,44 +4860,6 @@ static inline int vm_fault_to_errno(vm_fault_t vm_fault, int foll_flags)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -/*
> - * Indicates whether GUP can follow a PROT_NONE mapped page, or whether
> - * a (NUMA hinting or userfaultfd RWP) fault is required.
> - */
> -static inline bool gup_can_follow_protnone(const struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> - unsigned int flags)
> -{
> - /*
> - * VM_UFFD_RWP uses protnone as an access-tracking marker, not for
> - * NUMA hinting. GUP must always take a fault so the access is
> - * delivered to userfaultfd, regardless of FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT.
> - *
> - * Only do so while the VMA is accessible. If it has been made
> - * inaccessible (e.g. mprotect(PROT_NONE)), fall through to the guard
> - * below: forcing a fault there would loop, as handle_mm_fault() makes
> - * no progress on protnone in an inaccessible VMA, and the access is
> - * denied regardless of RWP anyway.
> - */
> - if (vma_test_single_mask(vma, VMA_UFFD_RWP) && vma_is_accessible(vma))
> - return false;
> -
> - /*
> - * If callers don't want to honor NUMA hinting faults, no need to
> - * determine if we would actually have to trigger a NUMA hinting fault.
> - */
> - if (!(flags & FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT))
> - return true;
> -
> - /*
> - * NUMA hinting faults don't apply in inaccessible (PROT_NONE) VMAs.
> - *
> - * Requiring a fault here even for inaccessible VMAs would mean that
> - * FOLL_FORCE cannot make any progress, because handle_mm_fault()
> - * refuses to process NUMA hinting faults in inaccessible VMAs.
> - */
> - return !vma_is_accessible(vma);
> -}
> -
> typedef int (*pte_fn_t)(pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, void *data);
> extern int apply_to_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
> unsigned long size, pte_fn_t fn, void *data);
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index eb898ea1ee22..500e2aa99e48 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -633,6 +633,44 @@ static struct page *no_page_table(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Indicates whether GUP can follow a PROT_NONE mapped page, or whether
> + * a (NUMA hinting or userfaultfd RWP) fault is required.
> + */
> +static inline bool gup_can_follow_protnone(const struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> + unsigned int flags)
> +{
> + /*
> + * VM_UFFD_RWP uses protnone as an access-tracking marker, not for
> + * NUMA hinting. GUP must always take a fault so the access is
> + * delivered to userfaultfd, regardless of FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT.
> + *
> + * Only do so while the VMA is accessible. If it has been made
> + * inaccessible (e.g. mprotect(PROT_NONE)), fall through to the guard
> + * below: forcing a fault there would loop, as handle_mm_fault() makes
> + * no progress on protnone in an inaccessible VMA, and the access is
> + * denied regardless of RWP anyway.
> + */
> + if (vma_test_single_mask(vma, VMA_UFFD_RWP) && vma_is_accessible(vma))
> + return false;
> +
> + /*
> + * If callers don't want to honor NUMA hinting faults, no need to
> + * determine if we would actually have to trigger a NUMA hinting fault.
> + */
> + if (!(flags & FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT))
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * NUMA hinting faults don't apply in inaccessible (PROT_NONE) VMAs.
> + *
> + * Requiring a fault here even for inaccessible VMAs would mean that
> + * FOLL_FORCE cannot make any progress, because handle_mm_fault()
> + * refuses to process NUMA hinting faults in inaccessible VMAs.
> + */
> + return !vma_is_accessible(vma);
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_PGTABLE_HAS_HUGE_LEAVES
> /* FOLL_FORCE can write to even unwritable PUDs in COW mappings. */
> static inline bool can_follow_write_pud(pud_t pud, struct page *page,
>
> --
> 2.53.0
>
--
Cheers, Lorenzo