Re: [patch 18/39] remap_file_pages protection support: add VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV

[Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:21:45PM +0200, blaisorblade@yahoo.it wrote:
> @@ -632,10 +632,11 @@ static inline int page_mapped(struct pag
>   * Used to decide whether a process gets delivered SIGBUS or
>   * just gets major/minor fault counters bumped up.
>   */
> -#define VM_FAULT_OOM	(-1)
> -#define VM_FAULT_SIGBUS	0
> -#define VM_FAULT_MINOR	1
> -#define VM_FAULT_MAJOR	2
> +#define VM_FAULT_OOM		(-1)
> +#define VM_FAULT_SIGBUS		0
> +#define VM_FAULT_MINOR		1
> +#define VM_FAULT_MAJOR		2
> +#define VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV	3
>  
>  #define offset_in_page(p)	((unsigned long)(p) & ~PAGE_MASK)
>  

Please arrange for "success" values to be numerically larger than "failure"
values.  This will avoid breaking ARM.

Is there a reason why we don't use -ve numbers for failure and +ve for
success here?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/