On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 11:31:53AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 17:46:36 +0000 Pedro Falcato <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > -#define VM_REMAP_FLAGS (VM_IO | VM_PFNMAP | VM_DONTEXPAND | VM_DONTDUMP)
> > > +#define VMA_REMAP_FLAGS mk_vma_flags(VMA_IO_BIT, VMA_PFNMAP_BIT, \
> > > + VMA_DONTEXPAND_BIT, VMA_DONTDUMP_BIT)
> >
> > as a sidenote, these flags are no longer constant expressions and thus
> >
> > static vma_flags_t flags = VMA_REMAP_FLAGS;
I mean this would be a code smell anyway :) but point taken.
> >
> > can't compile.
>
> Yup, that isn't nice. An all-caps thing with no () is a compile-time
> constant.
There is precedence for this, e.g. TASK_SIZE_MAX and other arch defines like
that:
error: initializer element is not a compile-time constant
3309 | static unsigned long task_max = TASK_SIZE_MAX;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
And this will almost certainly (and certainly in everything I tested) become a
compile-time constant via the optimiser so to all intents and purposes it _is_
essentially compile-time.
But the point of doing it this way is to maintain, as much as possible,
one-to-one translation between the previous approach and the new with as little
noise/friction as possible.
Making this a function makes things really horrible honestly.
Because vma_remap_flags() suddenly because a vague thing - I'd assume this was a
function doing something. So now do we call it get_vma_remap_flags()? Suddenly
something nice-ish like:
if (vma_flags_test(flags, VMA_REMAP_FLAGS)) {
...
}
Become:
if (vma_flags_test(flags, get_vma_remap_flags())) {
...
}
And now it's SUPER ambiguous as to what you're doing there. I'd assume right
away that get_vma_remap_flags() was going off and doing something or referencing
a static variable or something.
Given the compile will treat the former _exactly_ as if it were a compile-time
constant it's just adding unnecessary ambiguity.
So is it something we can live with?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but isn't
there when the pond is first dug out, can we still call it a duck? ;)
>
> It looks like we can make this a nice inlined (commented!) lower-cased
> C function as a little low-priority cleanup.
>
> > Rest LGTM though.
> >
> > Acked-by: Pedro Falcato <[email protected]>
>
> Great, thanks.
Cheers, Lorenzo
