Hi Souptick, On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:49 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:47 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I think this is a bad plan. What we should rather do is examine the current > > users of vm_insert_page() and ask "What interface would better replace > > vm_insert_page()?" > > > > As I've said to you before, I believe the right answer is to have a > > vm_insert_range() which takes an array of struct page pointers. That > > fits the majority of remaining users. > > Ok, but it will take some time. > Is it a good idea to introduce the final vm_fault_t patch and then > start working on vm_insert_range as it will be bit time consuming ? > Well, why is there a rush? Development should be done in a patch series or a tree, and submitted as a whole, instead of sending partial patches. Also, not sure if you saw my comments/review: if the interface is not going to change, why the name change? Why can't we simply keep using vm_insert_page? Cheers, Miguel
