On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 04:52:18PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > Am 14.05.25 um 16:48 schrieb Claudio Imbrenda: > > > > > > > A possible fix for this would be to rename PROT_NONE in the enum to PROT_TYPE_NONE. > > > > > > > > please write a patch to rename PROT_NONE in our enum to > > > > PROT_TYPE_DUMMY, I can review it quickly. > > > > > > > > if Paolo has no objections, I'm fine with having the patch go through > > > > the mm tree > > > > > > Yes, lets do a quick fix and I can also do > > > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > for a s/PROT_NONE/PROT_TYPE_NONE/g > > > patch. > > > > I'd rather have PROT_TYPE_DUMMY, since it's a dummy value and not > > something that indicates "no protection" > > makes sense. Thanks for the quick response guys, did you want us to write the patch? We can put something together quickly if so and cc you on it. Ack on the comment above, of course! Cheers, Lorenzo
