From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932849AbcAMTQi (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:16:38 -0500 Received: from www.sr71.net ([198.145.64.142]:47539 "EHLO blackbird.sr71.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932757AbcAMTQh (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:16:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] mm, gup: introduce concept of "foreign" get_user_pages() To: Vlastimil Babka , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20160107000104.1A105322@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20160107000106.D9135553@viggo.jf.intel.com> <56969EE1.5060904@suse.cz> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <5696A293.5020609@sr71.net> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:16:35 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56969EE1.5060904@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/13/2016 11:00 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> > We leave a stub get_user_pages() around with a __deprecated >> > warning. > Hm when replying to previous version I assumed this is because there are many > get_user_pages() callers remaining. But now I see there are just 3 drivers not > converted by this patch? In that case I would favor to convert get_user_pages() > to become what is now get_current_user_pages(). This would be much more > consistent IMHO. We don't need to cater to out-of-tree modules? > > Sorry, I should have looked thoroughly on the previous reply, not just assume. It's really hard to submit a set of patches that remove a well-known API. New (in-tree) callers are always popping up, and you can see that a few have popped up since I updated this the last time. Without leaving the old stub around, it virtually guarantees that this patch will cause breakage in -next for a release or two. I'll fix up the other bits you commented on, btw!