On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 7:11 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:39 PM Miguel Ojeda > > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > They are not supposed to be "steps". You did it with 70+ commits (!!) > > > over the course of several months. Why a tree wasn't created, stuff > > > developed there, and when done, submitted it for review? > > > > Because we already have a plan for entire vm_fault_t migration and > > the * instruction * was to send one patch per driver. > > The instruction? Sorry for the delayed response. Instruction from Matthew Wilcox who is supervising the entire vm_fault_t migration work :-) > > > > > > > Fine, but you haven't answered to the other parts of my email: you > > > don't explain why you choose one alternative over the others, you > > > simply keep changing the approach. > > > > We are going in circles here. That you want to convert vm_insert_page > > to vmf_insert_page for the PF case is fine and understood. However, > > you don't *need* to introduce a new name for the remaining non-PF > > cases if the function is going to be the exact same thing as before. > > You say "The final goal is to remove vm_insert_page", but you haven't > > justified *why* you need to remove that name. > > > > I think I have given that answer. If we don't remove vm_insert_page, > > future #PF caller will have option to use it. But those should be > > restricted. How are we going to restrict vm_insert_page in one half > > of kernel when other half is still using it ?? Is there any way ? ( I don't > > know) > > Ah, so that is what you are concerned about: future misuses. Well, I > don't really see the problem. There are only ~18 calls to > vm_insert_page() in the entire kernel: checking if people is using it > properly for a while should be easy. As long as the new behavior is > documented properly, it should be fine. If you are really concerned > about mistakes being made, then fine, we can rename it as I suggested. > > Now, the new vm_insert_range() is another topic. It simplifies a few > of the callers and buys us the rename at the same time, so I am also > OK with it. > > As you see, I am not against the changes -- it is just that they > should clearly justified. :-) It wasn't clear what your problem with > the current vm_insert_page() is. > > Cheers, > Miguel
