On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:15:28AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.hu...@intel.com> writes:
> >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 04:26:07PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >>> @@ -3516,11 +3512,39 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry,
> >>> unsigned char usage)
> >>
> >> Two comments about this part of __swap_duplicate as long as you're moving
> >> it to
> >> another function:
> >>
> >> } else if (count || has_cache) {
> >>
> >> if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX) /* #1
> >> */
> >> count += usage;
> >> else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) > SWAP_MAP_MAX) /* #2
> >> */
> >> err = -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> #1: __swap_duplicate_locked might use
> >>
> >> VM_BUG_ON(usage != SWAP_HAS_CACHE && usage != 1);
> >>
> >> to document the unstated assumption that usage is 1 (otherwise count could
> >> overflow).
> >
> > Sounds good. Will do this.
>
> Found usage parameter of __swap_duplicate() could be SWAP_MAP_SHMEM too.
> We can improve the parameter checking. But that appears not belong to
> this series.
Fair enough, I'll see about adding this along with the other patch I'm sending.
Daniel
