On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:25:56AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 11:20:05AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Hi Lorenzo, > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 06:30:38AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > > +Mappings can also simply be moved > > > > > +(without any resizing) > > > > > +by specifying equal > > > > > +.I old_size > > > > > +and > > > > > +.I new_size > > > > > +and using the > > > > > +.B MREMAP_FIXED > > > > > +flag > > > > > +(see below). > > > > > +Since Linux 6.17, > > > > > +while > > > > > +.I old_address > > > > > +must reside within a mapping, > > > > > > > > I don't understand this. What does it mean that old_address must reside > > > > within a mapping? It's a point, not a size, so I'm not sure I > > > > understand it. > > > > > > I think if it were a size it would be more confusing no? > > > > > > It's an address, the address must be located within an existing memory mapping. > > > > What I don't understand is: how could you not comply with that? Could > > you pass some old_address that is in two mappings? Being a single > > address, that would be impossible, right? > > It can be in an unmapped area. It's either in an unmapped area or a mapped one. > > I could simply reword this as 'old_address must be mapped'? Yup, that seems better. Thanks! Cheers, Alex > > > Will replace with 'located' for clarity. > > > > > > > > > > > > +.I old_size > > > > > +may span multiple mappings > > > > > +which do not have to be > > > > > +adjacent to one another when > > > > > +performing a move like this. > > > > > > Have a lovely day! > > Alex > > > > -- > > <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
