Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm/gup: clean up codes in fault_in_xxx() functions

[Baoquan He]

On 04/13/25 at 10:09pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.04.25 04:04, Baoquan He wrote:
> > The code style in fault_in_readable() and fault_in_writable() is a
> > little inconsistent with fault_in_safe_writeable(). In fault_in_readable()
> > and fault_in_writable(), it uses 'uaddr' passed in as loop cursor. While
> > in fault_in_safe_writeable(), local variable 'start' is used as loop
> > cursor. This may mislead people when reading code or making change in
> > these codes.
> > 
> > Here define explicit loop cursor and use for loop to simplify codes in
> > these three functions. These cleanup can make them be consistent in
> > code style and improve readability.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> Hopefully we don't introduce anything unexpected ... do we have some unit
> test that could make use feel better, especially regarding end < start?
> 
> If not, could we add one based on some feature that ends up calling at least
> one of these functions?

Seems no existing case. GUP has selftests, no test codes for kunit. I will see
if I can add one, maybe it's not easy.

> 
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks.