[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <336094c6-0c94-2b43-5472-c44638e8446a@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:41:42 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>, jgg@...dia.com
Cc: Felix.Kuehling@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org, rcampbell@...dia.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
hch@....de, jglisse@...hat.com, apopple@...dia.com,
willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/14] mm: add device coherent checker to
is_pinnable_page
On 28.06.22 02:14, Alex Sierra wrote:
> is_device_coherent checker was added to is_pinnable_page and renamed
> to is_longterm_pinnable_page. The reason is that device coherent
> pages are not supported for longterm pinning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>
> ---
> include/linux/memremap.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/mm.h | 24 ------------------------
> mm/gup.c | 5 ++---
> mm/gup_test.c | 4 ++--
> mm/hugetlb.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
Rename of the function should be a separate cleanup patch before any
other changes, and the remaining change should be squashed into patch
#1, to logically make sense, because it still states "no one should be
allowed to pin such memory so that it can always be evicted."
Or am I missing something?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists