On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:41:08PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 15-08-19 19:14:08, John Hubbard wrote: > > On 8/15/19 10:41 AM, John Hubbard wrote: > > > On 8/15/19 10:32 AM, Ira Weiny wrote: > > >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 03:35:10PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > >>> On Thu 15-08-19 15:26:22, Jan Kara wrote: > > >>>> On Wed 14-08-19 20:01:07, John Hubbard wrote: > > >>>>> On 8/14/19 5:02 PM, John Hubbard wrote: > > ... > > >> Ok just to make this clear I threw up my current tree with your patches here: > > >> > > >> https://github.com/weiny2/linux-kernel/commits/mmotm-rdmafsdax-b0-v4 > > >> > > >> I'm talking about dropping the final patch: > > >> 05fd2d3afa6b rdma/umem_odp: Use vaddr_pin_pages_remote() in ODP > > >> > > >> The other 2 can stay. I split out the *_remote() call. We don't have a user > > >> but I'll keep it around for a bit. > > >> > > >> This tree is still WIP as I work through all the comments. So I've not changed > > >> names or variable types etc... Just wanted to settle this. > > >> > > > > > > Right. And now that ODP is not a user, I'll take a quick look through my other > > > call site conversions and see if I can find an easy one, to include here as > > > the first user of vaddr_pin_pages_remote(). I'll send it your way if that > > > works out. > > > > > > > OK, there was only process_vm_access.c, plus (sort of) Bharath's sgi-gru > > patch, maybe eventually [1]. But looking at process_vm_access.c, I think > > it is one of the patches that is no longer applicable, and I can just > > drop it entirely...I'd welcome a second opinion on that... > > I don't think you can drop the patch. process_vm_rw_pages() clearly touches > page contents and does not synchronize with page_mkclean(). So it is case > 1) and needs FOLL_PIN semantics. John could you send a formal patch using vaddr_pin* and I'll add it to the tree? Ira > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR >
