From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 09/27] x86/mm: Change _PAGE_DIRTY to _PAGE_DIRTY_HW Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 06:38:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20181003133856.GA24782@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180921150351.20898-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20180921150351.20898-10-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180921150351.20898-10-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Yu-cheng Yu Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Cyrill Gorcunov , Dave Hansen , Florian Weimer , "H.J. Lu" , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek Peter List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:03:33AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > We are going to create _PAGE_DIRTY_SW for non-hardware, memory > management purposes. Rename _PAGE_DIRTY to _PAGE_DIRTY_HW and > _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY to _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY_HW to make these PTE dirty > bits more clear. There are no functional changes in this > patch. I would like there to be some documentation in this patchset which explains the difference between PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY and PAGE_DIRTY_SW. Also, is it really necessary to rename PAGE_DIRTY? It feels like a lot of churn. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:58502 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726748AbeJCU1e (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:27:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 06:38:56 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 09/27] x86/mm: Change _PAGE_DIRTY to _PAGE_DIRTY_HW Message-ID: <20181003133856.GA24782@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180921150351.20898-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20180921150351.20898-10-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180921150351.20898-10-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Yu-cheng Yu Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Cyrill Gorcunov , Dave Hansen , Florian Weimer , "H.J. Lu" , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek , Peter Zijlstra , Randy Dunlap , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Vedvyas Shanbhogue Message-ID: <20181003133856.mmjSY7_jeeU1Wz-6YZVr_i10zhAvLSzUtNm7V2J1utE@z> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:03:33AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > We are going to create _PAGE_DIRTY_SW for non-hardware, memory > management purposes. Rename _PAGE_DIRTY to _PAGE_DIRTY_HW and > _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY to _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY_HW to make these PTE dirty > bits more clear. There are no functional changes in this > patch. I would like there to be some documentation in this patchset which explains the difference between PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY and PAGE_DIRTY_SW. Also, is it really necessary to rename PAGE_DIRTY? It feels like a lot of churn.