[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <568BA039.4060901@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:51:37 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/32] mm, gup: introduce concept of "foreign"
get_user_pages()
On 12/14/2015 08:05 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>
> For protection keys, we need to understand whether protections
> should be enforced in software or not. In general, we enforce
> protections when working on our own task, but not when on others.
> We call these "current" and "foreign" operations.
>
> This introduces two new get_user_pages() variants:
>
> get_current_user_pages()
> get_foreign_user_pages()
>
> get_current_user_pages() is a drop-in replacement for when
> get_user_pages() was called with (current, current->mm, ...) as
> arguments. Using it makes a few of the call sites look a bit
> nicer.
>
> get_foreign_user_pages() is a replacement for when
> get_user_pages() is called on non-current tsk/mm.
>
> We leave a stub get_user_pages() around with a __deprecated
> warning.
Changelog doesn't mention that get_user_pages_unlocked() is also changed
to be effectively get_current_user_pages_unlocked(). It's a bit
non-obvious and the inconsistent naming is unfortunate, but I can see
how get_current_user_pages_unlocked() would be too long, and just
deleting the parameters from get_user_pages() would be too large and
intrusive. But please mention this in changelog?
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists