[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190605112328.GB2025@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 04:23:28 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 09:19:22PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com> writes:
> > Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures
> > duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a
> > single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place.
> > kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault()
> > need not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can
> > now contain upto an 'unsigned int' accommodating all possible platforms.
> ...
>
> You've changed several of the architectures from something like above,
> where it disables preemption around the call into the below:
>
>
> Which skips everything if we're preemptible. Is that an equivalent
> change? If so can you please explain why in more detail.
See the discussion in v1 of this patch, which you were cc'd on.
I agree the description here completely fails to mention why the change.
It should mention commit a980c0ef9f6d8c.
> Also why not have it return bool?
>
> cheers
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists