On Fri 30-09-16 02:10:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 06:08:06PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Currently we have two different structures for passing fault information > > around - struct vm_fault and struct fault_env. DAX will need more > > information in struct vm_fault to handle its faults so the content of > > that structure would become event closer to fault_env. Furthermore it > > would need to generate struct fault_env to be able to call some of the > > generic functions. So at this point I don't think there's much use in > > keeping these two structures separate. Just embed into struct vm_fault > > all that is needed to use it for both purposes. > > Looks sensible, and I wonder why it's not been like that from > the start. But given that you touched all users of the virtual_address > member earlier: any reason not to move everyone to the unmasked variant > there and avoid having to pass the address twice? Hum, right, probably makes sense. I'll do that for the next version. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
