Re: [PATCH 5/6] userfaultfd: decouple fault reason from VMA flags

On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 01:08:33PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -2793,14 +2793,14 @@ static inline bool userfaultfd_must_wait(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
 	 * If VMA has UFFD WP faults enabled and WP fault, wait for userspace to
 	 * resolve the fault.
 	 */
-	if (!pte_write(ptent) && (reason & VM_UFFD_WP))
+	if (!pte_write(ptent) && (reason & USERFAULT_WP))

I wonder if you could actually

You do this quite a lot and they read a bit horribly with the && and & on the
same sight-line. With the changes to the enum proposed above you could do:

	if (!pte_write(ptent) && test_bit(reason, USERFAULT_WP_BIT))

I find && and & perfectly readable and adding _BIT defines looks really
excessive to me.

Yeah, that looks alright to me as well.

I find the general inconsistent different sets of flags/bits but not
really/naming all a bit of a mess.

But these are largely aesthetic and I don't maintain this file so I guess
you guys can live without my tag here...

--
Cheers,

David

--
Cheers, Lorenzo