Re: [linux-next RFC v2] mm/gup.c: Convert to use get_user_{page|pages}_fast_only()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 6:36 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2020-05-23 21:27, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > API __get_user_pages_fast() renamed to get_user_pages_fast_only()
> > to align with pin_user_pages_fast_only().
> >
> > As part of this we will get rid of write parameter. Instead caller
> > will pass FOLL_WRITE to get_user_pages_fast_only(). This will not
> > change any existing functionality of the API.
> >
> > All the callers are changed to pass FOLL_WRITE.
>
> This looks good. A few nits below, but with those fixed, feel free to
> add:
>
>      Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> > There are few places where 1 is passed to 2nd parameter of
> > __get_user_pages_fast() and return value is checked for 1
> > like [1]. Those are replaced with new inline
> > get_user_page_fast_only().
> >
> > [1] if (__get_user_pages_fast(hva, 1, 1, &page) == 1)
> >
>
> We try to avoid talking *too* much about the previous version of
> the code. Just enough. So, instead of the above two paragraphs,
> I'd compress it down to:
>
> Also: introduce get_user_page_fast_only(), and use it in a few
> places that hard-code nr_pages to 1.
>
> ...
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index 93d93bd..8d4597f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -1817,10 +1817,16 @@ extern int mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >   /*
> >    * doesn't attempt to fault and will return short.
> >    */
> > -int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> > -                       struct page **pages);
> > +int get_user_pages_fast_only(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> > +                     unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages);
>
> Silly nit:
>
> Can you please leave the original indentation in place? I don't normally
> comment about this, but I like the original indentation better, and it matches
> the pin_user_pages_fast() below, too.
>
> ...
> > @@ -2786,8 +2792,8 @@ static int internal_get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> >    * If the architecture does not support this function, simply return with no
> >    * pages pinned.
> >    */
> > -int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> > -                       struct page **pages)
> > +int get_user_pages_fast_only(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> > +                     unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages)
>
>
> Same thing here: you've changed the original indentation, which was (arguably, but
> to my mind anyway) more readable, and for no reason. It still would have fit within
> 80 cols.
>
> I'm sure it's a perfect 50/50 mix of people who prefer either indentation style, and
> so for brand new code, I'll remain silent, as long as it is consistent with either
> itself and/or the surrounding code. But changing it back and forth is a bit
> aggravating, and best avoided. :)

Ok, along with these changes I will remove the *RFC* tag and repost it.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux