Hi, Axel,
Looks mostly good to me, but a few nitpickings below.
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 01:15:42PM -0800, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
[...]
> +static void uffd_error(const char *message, __s64 code)
> +{
> + fprintf(stderr, "%s: %" PRId64 "\n", message, (int64_t)code);
> + exit(1);
> +}
IMHO a macro that can take arbitrary parameters would be nicer, but if it
satisfy our need, definitely ok too.
[...]
> @@ -340,7 +348,8 @@ static void wp_range(int ufd, __u64 start, __u64 len,
> bool wp)
> prms.mode = wp ? UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT_MODE_WP : 0;
>
> if (ioctl(ufd, UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT, &prms)) {
> - fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%Lx\n", start);
> + fprintf(stderr, "clear WP failed for address 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
> + (uint64_t)start);
> exit(1);
Is it intended to not use uffd_error() here?
> }
> }
[...]
> @@ -979,26 +981,20 @@ static int __uffdio_zeropage(int ufd, unsigned long
> offset, bool retry)
> if (ret) {
> /* real retval in ufdio_zeropage.zeropage */
> if (has_zeropage) {
> - if (uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST) {
> - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST\n");
> - exit(1);
> - } else {
> - fprintf(stderr, "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error %Ld\n",
> - uffdio_zeropage.zeropage);
> - exit(1);
> - }
> + uffd_error(uffdio_zeropage.zeropage == -EEXIST ?
> + "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE -EEXIST" :
> + "UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE error",
Nit: The indents here are a bit odd..
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
