Re: [PATCH 5/6] userfaultfd: decouple fault reason from VMA flags

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 01:08:33PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>
> >>> @@ -2793,14 +2793,14 @@ static inline bool userfaultfd_must_wait(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> >>>  	 * If VMA has UFFD WP faults enabled and WP fault, wait for userspace to
> >>>  	 * resolve the fault.
> >>>  	 */
> >>> -	if (!pte_write(ptent) && (reason & VM_UFFD_WP))
> >>> +	if (!pte_write(ptent) && (reason & USERFAULT_WP))
> >>
> >> I wonder if you could actually
> >>
> >> You do this quite a lot and they read a bit horribly with the && and & on the
> >> same sight-line. With the changes to the enum proposed above you could do:
> >>
> >> 	if (!pte_write(ptent) && test_bit(reason, USERFAULT_WP_BIT))
> >
> > I find && and & perfectly readable and adding _BIT defines looks really
> > excessive to me.
>
> Yeah, that looks alright to me as well.

I find the general inconsistent different sets of flags/bits but not
really/naming all a bit of a mess.

But these are largely aesthetic and I don't maintain this file so I guess
you guys can live without my tag here...

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David

--
Cheers, Lorenzo