Re: [PATCH 01/13] mm: introduce vma_flags_can_grow() and vma_can_grow()
Lance Yang <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-samsung-soc,dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.freedesktop.lists.intel-gfx,org.freedesktop.lists.intel-xe,org.freedesktop.lists.nouveau,org.infradead.lists.linux-rockchip,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-fbdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-sound,org.kernel.vger.linux-tegra,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev,org.xenproject.lists.xen-devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 08:25:24PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: >These test whether the VMA has stack sematics, i.e. is able to grow upwards >or downwards depending on the architecture. > >In order to account for arches which do not support upward-growing stacks, >introduce VMA_GROWSUP whose definition depends on the architecture >supporting it, and use vma_flags_test_single_mask() in vma_flags_can_grow() >to account for this. > >Update the VMA userland tests to reflect the changes > >No functional change intended. > >Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> >--- Nice cleanup! Feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Lance Yang <[email protected]>