On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 08:34:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Would you be willing to look at doing that kind of purely syntactic, > > non-semantic cleanup first? > > Sure, more than happy to do that! I'll work on a patch for this. > > > I think that if we end up having the FOLL_FORCE semantics, we're > > actually better off having an explicit FOLL_FORCE flag, and *not* do > > some kind of implicit "under these magical circumstances we'll force > > it anyway". The implicit thing is what we used to do long long ago, we > > definitely don't want to. > > That's a good point, it would definitely be considerably more 'magical', and > expanding the conditions to include uprobes etc. would only add to that. > > I wondered about an alternative parameter/flag but it felt like it was > more-or-less FOLL_FORCE in a different form, at which point it may as well > remain FOLL_FORCE :) Adding Jan Kara (and Dave Hansen) to the Cc list: I think they were pursuing get_user_pages() cleanups last year (which would remove the force option from most callers anyway), and I've lost track of where that all got to. Lorenzo, please don't expend a lot of effort before checking with Jan. Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>