On Mon 19-08-19 12:30:18, John Hubbard wrote: > On 8/19/19 12:06 PM, Bharath Vedartham wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:56:11AM -0500, Dimitri Sivanich wrote: > > > Reviewed-by: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@xxxxxxx> > > Thanks! > > > > John, would you like to take this patch into your miscellaneous > > conversions patch set? > > > > (+Andrew and Michal, so they know where all this is going.) > > Sure, although that conversion series [1] is on a brief hold, because > there are additional conversions desired, and the API is still under > discussion. Also, reading between the lines of Michal's response [2] > about it, I think people would prefer that the next revision include > the following, for each conversion site: > > Conversion of gup/put_page sites: > > Before: > > get_user_pages(...); > ... > for each page: > put_page(); > > After: > > gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN; (maybe FOLL_LONGTERM in some cases) > vaddr_pin_user_pages(...gup_flags...) I was hoping that FOLL_PIN would be handled by vaddr_pin_user_pages. > ... > vaddr_unpin_user_pages(); /* which invokes put_user_page() */ > > Fortunately, it's not harmful for the simpler conversion from put_page() > to put_user_page() to happen first, and in fact those have usually led > to simplifications, paving the way to make it easier to call > vaddr_unpin_user_pages(), once it's ready. (And showing exactly what > to convert, too.) If that makes the later conversion easier then no real objections from me. Assuming that the current put_user_page conversions are correct of course (I have the mlock one and potentials that falls into the same category in mind). -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
