On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:10:20AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 7/14/19 11:56 PM, Bharath Vedartham wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 04:33:42PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > >> On 7/14/19 12:08 PM, Bharath Vedartham wrote: > [...] > >> 1. Pull down https://github.com/johnhubbard/linux/commits/gup_dma_core > >> and find missing conversions: look for any additional missing > >> get_user_pages/put_page conversions. You've already found a couple missing > >> ones. I haven't re-run a search in a long time, so there's probably even more. > >> a) And find more, after I rebase to 5.3-rc1: people probably are adding > >> get_user_pages() calls as we speak. :) > > Shouldn't this be documented then? I don't see any docs for using > > put_user_page*() in v5.2.1 in the memory management API section? > > Yes, it needs documentation. My first try (which is still in the above git > repo) was reviewed and found badly wanting, so I'm going to rewrite it. Meanwhile, > I agree that an interim note would be helpful, let me put something together. > > [...] > >> https://github.com/johnhubbard/linux/commits/gup_dma_core > >> > >> a) gets rebased often, and > >> > >> b) has a bunch of commits (iov_iter and related) that conflict > >> with the latest linux.git, > >> > >> c) has some bugs in the bio area, that I'm fixing, so I don't trust > >> that's it's safely runnable, for a few more days. > > I assume your repo contains only work related to fixing gup issues and > > not the main repo for gup development? i.e where gup changes are merged? > > Correct, this is just a private tree, not a maintainer tree. But I'll try to > keep the gup_dma_core branch something that is usable by others, during the > transition over to put_user_page(), because the page-tracking patches are the > main way to test any put_user_page() conversions. > > As Ira said, we're using linux-mm as the real (maintainer) tree. Thanks for the info! > > thanks, > -- > John Hubbard > NVIDIA
