From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DD66B004F for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 02:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:31:48 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: handle_mm_fault() calling convention cleanup.. Message-ID: <20090706073148.GJ2714@wotan.suse.de> References: <1246664107.7551.11.camel@pasglop> <1246741718.7551.22.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1246741718.7551.22.camel@pasglop> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Wu Fengguang , Ingo Molnar List-ID: On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 07:08:38AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 09:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Just a tiny word of warning: right now, the conversion I did pretty much > > depended on the fact that even if I missed a spot, it wouldn't actually > > make any difference. If somebody used "flags" as a binary value (ie like > > the old "write_access" kind of semantics), things would still all work, > > because it was still a "zero-vs-nonzero" issue wrt writes. > > .../... > > Right. Oh well.. we'll see when I get to it. I have a few higher > priority things on my pile at the moment. I have no problems with that. I'd always intended to have flags go further up the call chain like Linus did (since we'd discussed perhaps making faults interruptible and requiring an extra flag to distinguish get_user_pages callers that were not interruptible). So yes adding more flags to improve code or make things simpler is fine by me :) Thanks, Nick -- 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