On 10/12/26 20:48, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 08:39:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 10/12/26 20:35, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
>>>
>>> That gets removed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I mean we do that in a subsequent commit, I think even the next one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but to do that the code would now be something like:
>>>
>>> vma_flags_t masked = flags;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * vma_flags_is_mm_managed() tests VMA_IO_BIT, which will be removed
>>> * in the next commit.
>>> */
>>> vma_flags_clear(&flags, VMA_IO_BIT);
>>> if (!vma_flags_is_mm_managed(masked)) {
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> Is that really worth it?
>>>
>>> I don't think there's really too much confusion intra-patch about that is
>>> there?
>>
>> I would do it as above (- the comment, as that is the next patch indeed) and
>> only remove the vma_flags_clear() in the next patch.
>>
>> But in any case, you should spell out that this is only temporary in the
>> patch
>> description :)
>
> And then there's a 'masked' variable that is unused?
>
> You need to have two vma_flags_t variables to be able both clear VMA_IO_BIT
> and use vma_flags_is_mm_managed().
>
> So the change would have to be
>
> + vma_flags_t masked = *flags;
> +
> + vma_flags_clear(&flags, VMA_IO_BIT);
> + if (!vma_flags_is_mm_managed(&masked)) {
> + ...
> + }
>
> Then:
>
> - vma_flags_t masked = *flags;
> -
> - vma_flags_clear(&flags, VMA_IO_BIT);
> - if (!vma_flags_is_mm_managed(&masked)) {
> + if (!vma_flags_is_mm_managed(flags)) {
> ...
> }
>
> Which doesn't really seem worth it for somebody who is confused between two
> patches mid-series.
>
> But if you feel strongly I can make the change like that?
Whatever you prefer. Most important thing for me was finding it in the next
patch and being pleasantly surprised ;)
--
Cheers,
David
