From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:40682 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725886AbgHaTP4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:15:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:15:53 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm/gup: fix gup_fast with dynamic page table folding Message-Id: <20200831121553.8be5dcdbdbc5256846ac513e@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <9071c9fa-ba6a-90dc-2d7a-8b155141d890@de.ibm.com> References: <20200828140314.8556-1-gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com> <9071c9fa-ba6a-90dc-2d7a-8b155141d890@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: Gerald Schaefer , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm , LKML , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Claudio Imbrenda On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:53:36 +0200 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 28.08.20 16:03, Gerald Schaefer wrote: > have some feedback soon if option 1 or option 2 would be acceptable > from a common code perspective. Andrew, who of the mm people would > be the right one to decide? Jason and John Hubbard are doing most of the work in there at present, Both patches look OK to me from a non-s390 perspective. Unless we plan to implement Jason's more-general approach this time, I'd be inclined to defer to the s390 people as to the preferred implementation.