[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1BBAB7A1-6334-4462-8E2C-A878B3E902A1@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 02:17:28 +0000
From: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/gup: Remove try_get_page(), call
try_get_compound_head() directly
> On Aug 11, 2021, at 4:07 PM, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/11/21 1:35 PM, William Kucharski wrote:
>> I agree that try_get_page() should probably be removed entirely; is there
>> a reason you didn't in v2 of the patch?
>
> Hi William,
>
> This patch *does* remove try_get_page() entirely! Look below. I'll reply
> inline, below, to show where that happens.
Ah, my bad. I was conflating it with try_grab_page() in patch 2/3, which
also seems like it should be an inline, but given your explanation re:
try_get_compound_head() it makes perfect sense.
For the series:
Reviewed-by: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists