On Mon 10-10-16 09:28:28, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 09:47:12AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Yeah, so my cleanups where mostly concerned about mmap_sem locking and > > reducing number of places which cared about those. Regarding flags for > > get_user_pages() / get_vaddr_frames(), I agree that using flags argument > > as Linus suggests will make it easier to see what the callers actually > > want. So I'm for that. > > Great, thanks Jan! I have a draft patch that needs a little tweaking/further > testing but isn't too far off. > > One thing I am wondering about is whether functions that have write/force > parameters replaced with gup_flags should mask against (FOLL_WRITE | FOLL_FORCE) > to prevent callers from doing unexpected things with other FOLL_* flags? > > I'm inclined _not_ to because it adds a rather non-obvious restriction on this > parameter, reduces clarity about which flags are actually being used (which is > the point of the patch in the first place), and the caller ought to know what > they are doing. Yeah, just leave flags as is. There is no strong reason to restrict them. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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>