[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgY7VOwC9dFGGLZ4_-udzTFkxv6kWbBQg9bSJ5vtHcncA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 14:02:25 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: flush_dcache_page vs kunmap_local
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:39 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 08:30:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Why did this come up? Do you actually have some hardware or situation
> > that cares?
>
> Oh, we're doing review of the XFS/iomap folio patches, which led to
> looking at zero_user_segments(), and I realised that memzero_page()
> was now functionally identical to zero_user(). And you'd been quite
> specific about not having flush_dcache_page() in there, so ... I wondered
> if you'd had a change of mind.
Ugh. I guess it ends up being there whether I like it or not. All that
"zero_user_segments() stuff is too ugly for words, though, so I think
whoever wrote it must have been on some interesting pharmaceuticals.
What the hell are the two start/end things? And most users actually
just want a single page and should never have used that thing. Nasty.
I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists