[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yxb7YQWgjHkZet4u@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:48:49 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] iov_iter: new iov_iter_pin_pages*() routines
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 12:44:28AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> OK, that part is clear.
>
> > - for the pin case don't use the existing bvec helper at all, but
> > copy the logic for the block layer for not pinning.
>
> I'm almost, but not quite sure I get the idea above. Overall, what
> happens to bvec pages? Leave the get_page() pin in place for FOLL_GET
> (or USE_FOLL_GET), I suppose, but do...what, for FOLL_PIN callers?
Do not change anyhing for FOLL_GET callers, as they are on the way out
anyway.
For FOLL_PIN callers, never pin bvec and kvec pages: For file systems
not acquiring a reference is obviously safe, and the other callers will
need an audit, but I can't think of why it woul ever be unsafe.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists