On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:45 PM Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > For a series at v11 where there is broad agreement with maintainers within > > >> > the subsystem which it wraps, perhaps the priority should be to try to have > > >> > the series merged unless there is significant technical objection from the > > >> > rust side? > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> How about this: > > >> >> > > >> >> This clears the virtual memory map for the range given by `start` and > > >> >> `size`, dropping refcounts to memory held by the mappings in this range. That > > >> >> is, anonymous memory is completely freed, file-backed memory has its > > >> >> reference count on page cache folio's dropped, any dirty data will still > > >> >> be written back to disk as usual. > > >> > > > >> > Sorry I object to this, 'clears the virtual memory map' is really > > >> > vague. What is already there is better. > > >> > > >> Would you like the proposed paragraph if we replaced "virtual memory > > >> map" with "page table mappings", or do you object to the entirety of the > > >> new suggestion? > > > > > > I object to the suggestion in general. The description is fine as it is. > > > > Ok. I'm raising a flag because I had more questions after reading the > > docstring than before. > > Sure and so I think this is valuable information, and indicates it's > probably worthwhile adding a little extra information on mentioning page > tables. Sorry, I'm a bit lost. What would you like me to add? Perhaps there's an existing file in Documentation/ that I can link to? Alice
