On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:19:29PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
+int walk_page_range_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
unsigned long end, const struct mm_walk_ops *ops,void *private)+{
- struct mm_walk walk = {
.ops = ops,.mm = vma->vm_mm,.vma = vma,.private = private,- };
- int err;
- if (start >= end || !walk.mm)
return -EINVAL;- if (start < vma->vm_start || end > vma->vm_end)
return -EINVAL;- mmap_assert_locked(walk.mm);
- err = walk_page_test(start, end, &walk);
According to test_walk():
* @test_walk: caller specific callback function to determine whether * we walk over the current vma or not. Returning 0 means * "do page table walk over the current vma", returning * a negative value means "abort current page table walk * right now" and returning 1 means "skip the current vma"
Since this helper has vma passed in, not sure whether this is needed at all?
walk_page_vma_range() sounds slightly better to me as it does look more like an extension of walk_page_vma(), rather than sister version of walk_page_range_novma() (which works for "no backing VMA" case). But no strong opinion.