On 8/6/19 10:40 AM, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 02:40:40PM -0700, john.hubbard@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Provide a more capable variation of put_user_pages_dirty_lock(), >> and delete put_user_pages_dirty(). This is based on the >> following: >> >> 1. Lots of call sites become simpler if a bool is passed >> into put_user_page*(), instead of making the call site >> choose which put_user_page*() variant to call. >> >> 2. Christoph Hellwig's observation that set_page_dirty_lock() >> is usually correct, and set_page_dirty() is usually a >> bug, or at least questionable, within a put_user_page*() >> calling chain. >> >> This leads to the following API choices: >> >> * put_user_pages_dirty_lock(page, npages, make_dirty) >> >> * There is no put_user_pages_dirty(). You have to >> hand code that, in the rare case that it's >> required. >> >> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> >> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I assume this is superseded by the patch in the large series? > Actually, it's the other way around (there is a note that that effect in the admittedly wall-of-text cover letter [1] in the 34-patch series. However, I'm trying hard to ensure that it doesn't actually matter: * Patch 1 in the latest of each patch series, is identical * I'm reposting the two series together. ...and yes, it might have been better to merge the two patchsets, but the smaller one is more reviewable. And as a result, Andrew has already merged it into the akpm tree. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190804224915.28669-1-jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
