From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] mm: Join struct fault_env and vm_fault Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:43:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20161003074351.GF6457@quack2.suse.cz> References: <1474992504-20133-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1474992504-20133-3-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20160930091014.GB24352@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160930091014.GB24352@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jan Kara , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, Dan Williams , Ross Zwisler , "Kirill A. Shutemov" List-Id: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org On Fri 30-09-16 02:10:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 06:08:06PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Currently we have two different structures for passing fault information > > around - struct vm_fault and struct fault_env. DAX will need more > > information in struct vm_fault to handle its faults so the content of > > that structure would become event closer to fault_env. Furthermore it > > would need to generate struct fault_env to be able to call some of the > > generic functions. So at this point I don't think there's much use in > > keeping these two structures separate. Just embed into struct vm_fault > > all that is needed to use it for both purposes. > > Looks sensible, and I wonder why it's not been like that from > the start. But given that you touched all users of the virtual_address > member earlier: any reason not to move everyone to the unmasked variant > there and avoid having to pass the address twice? Hum, right, probably makes sense. I'll do that for the next version. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:43:51 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jan Kara , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, Dan Williams , Ross Zwisler , "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] mm: Join struct fault_env and vm_fault Message-ID: <20161003074351.GF6457@quack2.suse.cz> References: <1474992504-20133-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1474992504-20133-3-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20160930091014.GB24352@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160930091014.GB24352@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri 30-09-16 02:10:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 06:08:06PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Currently we have two different structures for passing fault information > > around - struct vm_fault and struct fault_env. DAX will need more > > information in struct vm_fault to handle its faults so the content of > > that structure would become event closer to fault_env. Furthermore it > > would need to generate struct fault_env to be able to call some of the > > generic functions. So at this point I don't think there's much use in > > keeping these two structures separate. Just embed into struct vm_fault > > all that is needed to use it for both purposes. > > Looks sensible, and I wonder why it's not been like that from > the start. But given that you touched all users of the virtual_address > member earlier: any reason not to move everyone to the unmasked variant > there and avoid having to pass the address twice? Hum, right, probably makes sense. I'll do that for the next version. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org