> > The third one is pgoff_t; again, use sane types, _if_ you actually
> want
> > the argument #3 at all - it can be derived from struct page you are
> > passing there as well.
>
> I thought it best to declare the _ops so that the struct page
> is opaque to the "backend" (driver). The kernel-side ("frontend")
> defines the handle and ensures coherency, so the backend shouldn't
> be allowed to derive or muck with the three-tuple passed by the
> kernel. In the existing (Xen tmem) driver, the only operation
> performed on the struct page parameter is page_to_pfn(). OTOH,
> I could go one step further and pass a pfn_t instead of a
> struct page, since it is really only the physical page frame that
> the backend needs to know about and (synchronously) read/write from/to.
>
> Thoughts?
Silly me. pfn_t is a Xen/KVM type not otherwise used in the
kernel AFAICT. Please ignore...
--
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
