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

Souptick Joarder
2018-10-23T12:33:42Z

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:
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Miguel Ojeda
> > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 7:11 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:39 PM Miguel Ojeda
> > > > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > They are not supposed to be "steps". You did it with 70+ commits (!!)
> > > > > over the course of several months. Why a tree wasn't created, stuff
> > > > > developed there, and when done, submitted it for review?
> > > >
> > > > Because we already have a plan for entire vm_fault_t migration and
> > > > the * instruction * was to send one patch per driver.
> > >
> > > The instruction?
> >
> > Sorry for the delayed response.
> > 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 ?