On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:29 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:54 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 05:44:32PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > > > Instruction from Matthew Wilcox who is supervising the entire vm_fault_t > > > > migration work :-) > > > > > > Hang on. That was for the initial vm_fault_t conversion in which each > > > step was clearly an improvement. What you're looking at now is far > > > from that. > > > > Ok. But my understanding was, the approach of vm_insert_range comes > > into discussion as part of converting vm_insert_page into vmf_insert_page > > which is still part of original vm_fault_t conversion discussion. No ? > > No. The initial part (converting all page fault methods to vm_fault_t) > is done. What remains undone (looking at akpm's tree) is changing the > typedef of vm_fault_t from int to unsigned int. That will prevent new > page fault handlers with the wrong type from being added. Ok, I will post the final typedef of vm_fault_t patch. > > I don't necessarily want to get rid of vm_insert_page(). Maybe it will > make sense to do that, and maybe not. What I do want to see is thought, > and not "Matthew told me to do it", when I didn't. I didn't mean it in other way. Sorry about it. I will work on it.
