[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <283b121d-f526-f43f-de45-dc2f8318d860@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:28:02 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
<linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/23] mm/gup: track dma-pinned pages: FOLL_PIN,
FOLL_LONGTERM
On 11/13/19 3:43 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
...
>>>> Can't we call this unpin_user_page then, for some symmetry? Or is that
>>>> even more churn?
>>>>
>>>> Looking from afar the naming here seems really confusing.
>>>
>>>
>>> That look from afar is valuable, because I'm too close to the problem to see
>>> how the naming looks. :)
>>>
>>> unpin_user_page() sounds symmetrical. It's true that it would cause more
>>> churn (which is why I started off with a proposal that avoids changing the
>>> names of put_user_page*() APIs). But OTOH, the amount of churn is proportional
>>> to the change in direction here, and it's really only 10 or 20 lines changed,
>>> in the end.
>>>
>>> So I'm open to changing to that naming. It would be nice to hear what others
>>> prefer, too...
>>
>> FWIW I'd find unpin_user_page() also better than put_user_page() as a
>> counterpart to pin_user_pages().
>
> One more point from afar on pin/unpin: We use that a lot in graphics for
> permanently pinned graphics buffer objects. Which really only should be
> used for scanout. So at least graphics folks should have an appropriate
> mindset and try to make sure we don't overuse this stuff.
> -Daniel
>
OK, Ira also likes "unpin", and so far no one has said *anything* in favor
of the "put_user_page" names, so I think we have a winner! I'll change the
names to unpin_user_page*().
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists