On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 01:29:39PM -0500, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > I find myself in the position of needing to expand the pagewalk API to > allow PUDs to be passed to pagewalk handlers. > > The problem with the current pagewalk API is that it requires the callers > to implement a lot of boilerplate, and the further up the hierarchy we > intercept the pagewalk, the more boilerplate has to be implemented in each > caller, to the point where it's not worth using the pagewalk API any more. > > Compare and contrast mincore's pud_entry that only has to handle PUDs > which are guaranteed to be (1) present, (2) huge, (3) locked versus the > PMD code which has to take care of checking all three things itself. > > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=145097405229181&w=2) > > Kirill's point is that it's confusing to have the PMD and PUD handling > be different, and I agree. But it certainly saves a lot of code in the > callers. So should we convert the PMD code to be similar? Or put a > subptimal API in for the PUD case? Naoya, if I remember correctly, we had something like this on early stage of you pagewalk rework. Is it correct? If yes, why it was changed to what we have now? > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>