[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aMxeVMkwLdkChhYd@x1.local>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:32:36 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Nikita Kalyazin <kalyazin@...zon.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Ujwal Kundur <ujwal.kundur@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Introduce vm_uffd_ops API
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 02:32:31PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> I believe the location of the code that handles the folio. One would
> decouple the folio processing from the mm while the other would decouple
> which processing of the folio is done within the mm.
>
> Does that make sense?
Not to me.
do_fault() allows allocation and some other things (e.g. trappable),
uffd_get_folio() doesn't. They're fundamentally exactly the same otherwise.
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists