[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170206143648.GA461@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:36:48 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
jack@...e.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: replace FAULT_FLAG_SIZE with parameter to huge_fault
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 02:31:22PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> Since the introduction of FAULT_FLAG_SIZE to the vm_fault flag, it has
> been somewhat painful with getting the flags set and removed at the
> correct locations. More than one kernel oops was introduced due to
> difficulties of getting the placement correctly. Removing the flag
> values and introducing an input parameter to huge_fault that indicates
> the size of the page entry. This makes the code easier to trace and
> should avoid the issues we see with the fault flags where removal of the
> flag was necessary in the fallback paths.
Why is this not in struct vm_fault? Also can be use this opportunity
to fold ->huge_fault into ->fault?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists