Re: [PATCH v2] mm: use mem_map_offset instead of mem_map_next

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:07:03 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 09/05/22 06:09, Cheng Li wrote:
> > To handle discontiguity case, mem_map_next() has a parameter named
> > `offset`. As a function caller, one would be confused why "get
> > next entry" needs a parameter named "offset". The other drawback of
> > mem_map_next() is that the callers must take care of the map between
> > parameter "iter" and "offset", otherwise we may get an hole or
> > duplication during iteration. So we use mem_map_offset instead of
> > mem_map_next.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cheng Li <lic121@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: 69d177c2fc70 ("hugetlbfs: handle pages higher order than MAX_ORDER")
> 
> The Fixes tag implies there is a user visible bug.  I do not believe this is
> the case here.  Is there a user visible bug?

A Fixes: with a cc:stable would indicate a user-visible bug.  But IMO a
bare Fixes: is simply a when-to-stop guide to backporters - a
convenience.  And, I suppose, it has some documentation benefit.

And if people are really that interested, they can read the dang
changelog ;)