[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YSkzSHSp8lld6dwW@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 18:47:36 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 18/19] iov_iter: Introduce nofault flag to disable
page faults
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 06:49:25PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> Introduce a new nofault flag to indicate to get_user_pages to use the
> FOLL_NOFAULT flag. This will cause get_user_pages to fail when it
> would otherwise fault in a page.
>
> Currently, the noio flag is only checked in iov_iter_get_pages and
> iov_iter_get_pages_alloc. This is enough for iomaop_dio_rw, but it
> may make sense to check in other contexts as well.
I can live with that, but
* direct assignments (as in the next patch) are fucking hard to
grep for. Is it intended to be "we set it for duration of primitive",
or...?
* it would be nice to have a description of intended semantics
for that thing. This "may make sense to check in other contexts" really
needs to be elaborated (and agreed) upon. Details, please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists