[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200213215407.GT7778@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:54:07 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Arjun Roy <arjunroy.kdev@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, arjunroy@...gle.com,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend mm,net-next 2/3] mm: Add vm_insert_pages().
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 06:59:57PM -0800, Arjun Roy wrote:
> int vm_insert_page(struct vm_area_struct *, unsigned long addr, struct page *);
> +int vm_insert_pages(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> + struct page **pages, unsigned long *num);
> int vm_insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> unsigned long pfn);
Sorry I didn't notice these patches earlier. I'm not thrilled about
the addition of a new vm_insert_* operation; we're moving towards a
vmf_insert_* API. There are almost no users left of vm_insert_page
(10, at a quick count). Once they're all gone, we can switch the
underlying primitives over to a vm_fault_t return type and get rid of the
errno-to-vm-fault translation step that currently goes on.
So ... is this called in the fault path? Do you have a struct vm_fault
around? Can you handle a vm_fault_t return value instead of an errno?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists