[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZInh//34yuKNuuX8@x1n>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:51:27 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm/hugetlb: Prepare hugetlb_follow_page_mask() for
FOLL_PIN
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 05:47:31PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Right. Then just call patch #2 "Add missing write-permission check" and this
> patch "Support FOLL_PIN in hugetlb_follow_page_mask()" or sth. like that.
>
> Regarding the backport, I really wonder if patch #2 is required at all,
> because I didn't sport any applicable FOLL_WRITE users. Maybe there were
> some? Hm. If it's not applicable, a single "Support FOLL_PIN in
> hugetlb_follow_page_mask()" patch might be cleanest.
Yeah, I agree. The code is definitely needed, not the split of patches if
no need for a backport. Let me merge then.
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists