On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:56:17AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > change_protection() was used by either the NUMA or mprotect() code, > there's one parameter for each of the callers (dirty_accountable and > prot_numa). Further, these parameters are passed along the calls: > > - change_protection_range() > - change_p4d_range() > - change_pud_range() > - change_pmd_range() > - ... > > Now we introduce a flag for change_protect() and all these helpers to > replace these parameters. Then we can avoid passing multiple parameters > multiple times along the way. > > More importantly, it'll greatly simplify the work if we want to > introduce any new parameters to change_protection(). In the follow up > patches, a new parameter for userfaultfd write protection will be > introduced. > > No functional change at all. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
It would have been nice if this was a coccinelle patch, easier to review. Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jgli...@redhat.com> > --- > include/linux/huge_mm.h | 2 +- > include/linux/mm.h | 14 +++++++++++++- > mm/huge_memory.c | 3 ++- > mm/mempolicy.c | 2 +- > mm/mprotect.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++------------- > 5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) [...]
