On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 02:02:11PM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:01:20 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:23:18AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > madvise_dontneed_single_vma() and madvise_free_single_vma() support both > > > batched tlb flushes and unbatched tlb flushes use cases depending on > > > received tlb parameter's value. The supports were for safe and fine > > > transition of the usages from the unbatched flushes to the batched ones. > > > Now the transition is done, and therefore there is no real unbatched tlb > > > flushes use case. Remove the code for supporting the no more being used > > > cases. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Obviously I support this based on previous preview :) but I wonder if we > > can avoid this horrid caller_tlb pattern in the first instance. > > I will try, though I have no good idea for that for now. > > Maybe we could simply squash patches 7-9. I'm bit concerned if it makes > changes unnecessariy mixed and not small, but I have no strong opinion about > it. Please feel free to let me know if you want that. Yeah, though maybe try to make things as incremental as possible within that? > > > > > FWIW: > > > > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Appreciate your reviews! No problem! Feel free to propagate to respin (assuming no major changes :) thanks for writing good clean code! > > > Thanks, > SJ > > [...]
