On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Axel Rasmussen wrote: > Agreed about taking one direction or the other further. > > I get the sense that Peter prefers the mcopy_atomic_install_ptes() > version, and would thus prefer to just expose that and let > shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() use it. > > But, I get the sense that you (Hugh) slightly prefer the other way - > just letting shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() deal with both the VM_SHARED and > !VM_SHARED cases. No, either direction seems plausible to me: start from whichever end you prefer. > > I was planning to write "I prefer option X because (reasons), and > objections?" but I'm realizing that it isn't really clear to me which > route would end up being cleaner. I think I have to just pick one, > write it out, and see where I end up. If it ends up gross, I don't > mind backtracking and taking the other route. :) To that end, I'll > proceed by having shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() call the new > mcopy_atomic_install_ptes() helper, and see how it looks (unless there > are objections). I am pleased to read that: it's exactly how I would approach it - so it must be right :-) Hugh
