On 7/23/19 11:06 AM, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:41:34PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: >> On 7/22/19 5:25 PM, Ira Weiny wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:34:15PM -0700, john.hubbard@xxxxxxxxx wrote: ... >> Obviously, this stuff is all subject to a certain amount of opinion, but I >> think I'm on really solid ground as far as precedent goes. So I'm pushing >> back on the NAK... :) > > Fair enough... However, we have discussed in the past how GUP can be a > confusing interface to use. > > So I'd like to see it be more directed. Only using the __put_user_pages() > version allows us to ID callers easier through a grep of PUP_FLAGS_DIRTY_LOCK > in addition to directing users to use that interface rather than having to read > the GUP code to figure out that the 2 calls above are equal. It is not a huge > deal but... > OK, combining all the feedback to date, which is: * the leading double underscore is unloved, * set_page_dirty() is under investigation, but likely guilty of incitement to cause bugs, ...we end up with this: void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, bool make_dirty) ...which I have a v2 patchset for, ready to send out. It makes IB all pretty too. :) thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
