On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:59:22AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:26:16AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: <> > > Hi Ross, > > > > vm_insert_mixed_mkwrite() is same as vm_insert_mixed() except this sets > > write parameter to inser_pfn() true. Will it make sense to just add > > mkwrite parameter to vm_insert_mixed() and not add a new helper function. > > (like insert_pfn()). > > > > Vivek > > Yep, this is how my initial implementation worked: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/7/907 > > vm_insert_mixed_mkwrite() was the new version that took an extra parameter, > and vm_insert_mixed() stuck around as a wrapper that supplied a default value > for the new parameter, so existing call sites didn't need to change and didn't > need to worry about the new parameter, but so that we didn't duplicate any > code. > > I changed this to the way that it currently works based on Dan's feedback in > that same mail thread. Looking at this again, I agree that duplicating vm_insert_mixed() seems undesirable. For v4 I'll add the flag to vm_insert_mixed() and just update all the call sites instead of adding a separate wrapper for the mkwrite case, which will fix this duplication and address Dan's naming concerns. Thanks for the review feedback.
