[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72mkTP_m20vqei-cpN+ypQ_gU472qn5m68vb_4Nqj5afMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:46:34 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
Robin van der Gracht <robin@...tonic.nl>,
stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, hjc@...k-chips.com,
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, robin.murphy@....com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, treding@...dia.com,
mhocko@...e.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>, tchibo@...gle.com,
riel@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, ying.huang@...el.com,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, cpandya@...eaurora.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
mcgrof@...nel.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Introduce new function vm_insert_kmem_page
Hi Souptick,
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:49 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:47 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think this is a bad plan. What we should rather do is examine the current
> > users of vm_insert_page() and ask "What interface would better replace
> > vm_insert_page()?"
> >
> > As I've said to you before, I believe the right answer is to have a
> > vm_insert_range() which takes an array of struct page pointers. That
> > fits the majority of remaining users.
>
> Ok, but it will take some time.
> Is it a good idea to introduce the final vm_fault_t patch and then
> start working on vm_insert_range as it will be bit time consuming ?
>
Well, why is there a rush? Development should be done in a patch
series or a tree, and submitted as a whole, instead of sending partial
patches.
Also, not sure if you saw my comments/review: if the interface is not
going to change, why the name change? Why can't we simply keep using
vm_insert_page?
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists