[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201102164131.GA25526@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 16:41:31 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
<linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
J??r??me Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/15] mm: Add unsafe_follow_pfn
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 11:52:56AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Need to hold the lock to check that and there are two ways to register
> notifiers these days, so it feels to expensive to me.
>
> CH's 'export symbol only for kvm' really does seem the most robust way
> to handle this though.
I hope I can get that done for this merge window, but I'm not sure.
I still think we should at least have a new name for the old follow_pfn
that no one should use. And it should sound more scary than
unsafe_follow_pfn :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists