On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:49:09AM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote: > Hi guys: > > Thanks for the helpful comments, after rethinking the issue, I have proposed > the following change: > 1. follow_pte instead of follow_pfn. Still no on follow_pfn, you don't need it once you use vmf_insert_pfn > 2. vmf_insert_pfn loops instead of io_remap_pfn_range > 3. proper undos when some call fails. > 4. keep the bigger lock range to avoid unessary pte install. Why do we need locks at all here? Jason
