Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Introduce new function vm_insert_kmem_page

Souptick Joarder
2018-10-23T13:15:56Z

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:29 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:54 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 05:44:32PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > > > Instruction from Matthew Wilcox who is supervising the entire vm_fault_t
> > > > migration work :-)
> > >
> > > Hang on. That was for the initial vm_fault_t conversion in which each
> > > step was clearly an improvement. What you're looking at now is far
> > > from that.
> >
> > Ok. But my understanding was, the approach of vm_insert_range comes
> > into discussion as part of converting vm_insert_page into vmf_insert_page
> > which is still part of original vm_fault_t conversion discussion. No ?
>
> No. The initial part (converting all page fault methods to vm_fault_t)
> is done. What remains undone (looking at akpm's tree) is changing the
> typedef of vm_fault_t from int to unsigned int. That will prevent new
> page fault handlers with the wrong type from being added.

Ok, I will post the final typedef of vm_fault_t patch.

>
> I don't necessarily want to get rid of vm_insert_page(). Maybe it will
> make sense to do that, and maybe not. What I do want to see is thought,
> and not "Matthew told me to do it", when I didn't.

I didn't mean it in other way. Sorry about it.
I will work on it.