From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:45894 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751841AbdFLECj (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:02:39 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:02:36 -0600 From: Ross Zwisler Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: add vm_insert_mixed_mkwrite() Message-ID: <20170612040236.GA7352@linux.intel.com> References: <20170607204859.13104-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20170610030346.GA3575@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Dan Williams Cc: Ross Zwisler , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , Matthew Wilcox , "Darrick J. Wong" , Jonathan Corbet , Steven Rostedt , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm , Dave Hansen , Ingo Molnar , Andreas Dilger , Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel , Jan Kara , ext4 hackers , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 08:35:08PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Ross Zwisler > wrote: > > And vm_insert_mixed_mkwrite() and vm_insert_mixed() are redundant with only > > the insert_pfn() line differing? This doesn't seem better...unless I'm > > missing something? > > > > The way it is, vm_insert_mixed_mkwrite() also closely matches > > insert_pfn_pmd(), which we use in the PMD case and which also takes a 'write' > > boolean which works the same as our newly added 'mkwrite'. > > Hmm, but now the pfn and pmd cases are inconsistent, if you put the > flag name in the function then don't add an argument, or make it like > the pmd case and add an argument to vm_insert_mixed(). I prefer the > former. Okay, I'll fix this for v2. Thanks for the review.