On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:08 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:48:32PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> (You can also force the problem with vmalloc() an then following the > >> kernel page tables, but I hope nobody does that any more. I suspect > >> I'm wrong, though, there's probably code that mixes vmalloc and > >> physical page accesses in various drivers) > > > > Should vmalloc_to_page() (84 users)/vmalloc_to_pfn() (17 users) be > > deprecated then? ;) > > I do think that the "modern" way of doing it is > "vmap()"/"vm_map_ram()" and friends, and it should be preferred over > using vmalloc() and then looking up the pages. > > But in the end, the two approaches really are equivalent, so it's not > like it really matters. So I don't think we need to deprecate things > officially, but obviously we should make people more aware of the > whole virtual alias thing that crops up whenever you use any of these > approaches. So what should be the preferred way to ensure data gets flushed when you've written directly to a page, and then want to read through the vm_map_ram() virtual range? Should we be adding new semantics to flush_kernel_dcache_page()? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
