On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 05:39:35PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Quoting from the cover letter: > > "We have hugetlb special-casing/checks in the callers in all cases either > way already in place: it doesn't make too much sense to call generic-looking > functions that end up doing hugetlb specific things from hugetlb > special-cases." I'll take this one as an example: I think one goal (of my understanding of the mm community) is to make the generic looking functions keep being generic, dropping any function named as "*hugetlb*" if possible one day within that generic implementation. I said that in my previous reply. Having that "*hugetlb*" code already in the code base may or may not be a good reason to further move it upward the stack. Strong feelings? No, I don't have. I'm not knowledged enough to do so. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
