On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:30 PM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:15:55PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:04 PM <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Since last version [4] i added the extra bits needed for the change_pte > > > optimization (which is a KSM thing). Here i am not posting users of > > > this, they will be posted to the appropriate sub-systems (KVM, GPU, > > > RDMA, ...) once this serie get upstream. If you want to look at users > > > of this see [5] [6]. If this gets in 5.1 then i will be submitting > > > those users for 5.2 (including KVM if KVM folks feel comfortable with > > > it). > > > > The users look small and straightforward. Why not await acks and > > reviewed-by's for the users like a typical upstream submission and > > merge them together? Is all of the functionality of this > > infrastructure consumed by the proposed users? Last time I checked it > > was only a subset. > > Yes pretty much all is use, the unuse case is SOFT_DIRTY and CLEAR > vs UNMAP. Both of which i intend to use. The RDMA folks already ack > the patches IIRC, so did radeon and amdgpu. I believe the i915 folks > were ok with it too. I do not want to merge things through Andrew > for all of this we discussed that in the past, merge mm bits through > Andrew in one release and bits that use things in the next release. Ok, I was trying to find the links to the acks on the mailing list, those references would address my concerns. I see no reason to rush SOFT_DIRTY and CLEAR ahead of the upstream user.
