On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:27:51PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:50:37AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:42 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > this series is based on a patch from Linus to split the callbacks > > > passed to walk_page_range and walk_page_vma into a separate structure > > > that can be marked const, with various cleanups from me on top. > > > > The whole series looks good to me. Ack. > > > > > Note that both Thomas and Steven have series touching this area pending, > > > and there are a couple consumer in flux too - the hmm tree already > > > conflicts with this series, and I have potential dma changes on top of > > > the consumers in Thomas and Steven's series, so we'll probably need a > > > git tree similar to the hmm one to synchronize these updates. > > > > I'd be willing to just merge this now, if that helps. The conversion > > is mechanical, and my only slight worry would be that at least for my > > original patch I didn't build-test the (few) non-x86 > > architecture-specific cases. But I did end up looking at them fairly > > closely (basically using some grep/sed scripts to see that the > > conversions I did matched the same patterns). And your changes look > > like obvious improvements too where any mistake would have been caught > > by the compiler. > > > > So I'm not all that worried from a functionality standpoint, and if > > this will help the next merge window, I'll happily pull now. > > So what is the plan forward? Probably a little late for 5.3, > so queue it up in -mm for 5.4 and deal with the conflicts in at least > hmm? Queue it up in the hmm tree even if it doesn't 100% fit? Did we make a decision on this? Due to travel & LPC I'd like to finalize the hmm tree next week. Thanks, Jason
