On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 09:42:28AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 12:59:40PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > In gup_fast_pte_range() we check after checking pte_devmap(). Do we want to > > > do it in a similar fashion here, or is there a reason to do it differently? > > > > IIUC they should behave the same, as the two should be mutual exclusive so > > far. E.g. see insert_pfn(): > > Yes, agree no functional difference, but David has a point to try to > keep the logic structurally the same in all pte/pmd/pud copies. OK, let me reorder them if that helps. > > > if (pfn_t_devmap(pfn)) > > entry = pte_mkdevmap(pfn_t_pte(pfn, prot)); > > else > > entry = pte_mkspecial(pfn_t_pte(pfn, prot)); > > > > It might change for sure if Alistair move on with the devmap work, though.. > > these two always are processed together now, so I hope that won't add much > > burden which series will land first, then we may need some care on merging > > them. I don't expect anything too tricky in merge if that was about > > removal of the devmap bits. > > Removing pte_mkdevmap can only make things simpler :) Yep. :) Thanks, -- Peter Xu
