[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiwgOPQ+4Eaf0GD5P_GveE6vUHsKxAT=pMsjk1v_kh4ig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 15:30:45 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc: DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PULL] topic/iomem-mmap-vs-gup
[ You had a really odd Reply-to on this one ]
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:15 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:
>
> Anyway here's a small pull for you to ponder, now that the big ones are
> all through.
Well, _now_ I'm all caught up. Knock wood. Anyway, time to look at it:
> Follow-up to my pull from last merge window: kvm and vfio lost their
> very unsafe use of follow_pfn, this appropriately marks up the very
> last user for some userptr-as-buffer use-cases in media. There was
> some resistance to outright removing it, maybe we can do this in a few
> releases.
Hmm. So this looks mostly ok to me, although I think the change to the
nommu case is pretty ridiculous.
On nommu, unsafe_follow_pfn() should just be a wrapper around
follow_pfn(). There's no races when you can't remap anything. No?
Do the two media cases even work on nommu?
Finally - did you intend fo this to be a real pull request? Because
the email read to me like "think about this and tell me what you
think" rather than "please pull"..
And I have now fulfilled that "think about and tell me" part ;)
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists