On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:14:45PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:00:03PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 12:28:54AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > > These are the approaches which could have been taken to handle > > > this scenario - > > > > > > * Replace vm_insert_page with vmf_insert_page and then write few > > > extra lines of code to convert VM_FAULT_CODE to errno which > > > makes driver users more complex ( also the reverse mapping errno to > > > VM_FAULT_CODE have been cleaned up as part of vm_fault_t migration , > > > not preferred to introduce anything similar again) > > > > > > * Maintain both vm_insert_page and vmf_insert_page and use it in > > > respective places. But it won't gurantee that vm_insert_page will > > > never be used in #PF context. > > > > > > * Introduce a similar API like vm_insert_page, convert all non #PF > > > consumer to use it and finally remove vm_insert_page by converting > > > it to vmf_insert_page. > > > > > > And the 3rd approach was taken by introducing vm_insert_kmem_page(). > > > > > > In short, vmf_insert_page will be used in page fault handlers > > > context and vm_insert_kmem_page will be used to map kernel > > > memory to user vma outside page fault handlers context. > > > > As far as I can tell, vm_insert_kmem_page() is line-for-line identical > > with vm_insert_page(). Seriously, here's a diff I just did: [...] > > What on earth are you trying to do? > > Reading the commit log, it seems that the intention is to split out > vm_insert_page() used outside of page-fault handling with the use > within page-fault handling, so that different return codes can be > used. Right, but we already did that. We now have vmf_insert_page() which returns a VM_FAULT_* code and vm_insert_page() which returns an errno.
