On 24.01.23 15:45, David Howells wrote:
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At least reduces the occurrences of FOLL_PIN :)
I don't see where the problem is in letting people supply FOLL_PIN or
FOLL_GET. Why even have pin_user_pages() and get_user_pages() since they end
up at the same place. They should be inline wrappers, if separate functions
at all.
There once was a proposed goal of restricting FOLL_GET to core-mm and
allowing other drivers etc. to only use FOLL_PIN. Providing
pin_user_pages() and the corresponding unpin part seemed very clean to me.
To me that makes perfect sense and will prevent any misuse once we
converted everything relevant to FOLL_PIN.
To be precise, I think we could get away in this patch set by not using
FOLL_PIN and FOLL_GET and it wouldn't really reduce readability of the
code ...
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
