On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 19/04/17 12:30 PM, Dan Williams wrote: >> Letting others users do the container_of() arrangement means that >> struct page_map needs to become public and move into struct >> dev_pagemap directly. > > Ah, yes, I got a bit turned around by that and failed to notice that > page_map and dev_pagemap are different. Why is it that dev_pagemap > contains pretty much the exact same information as page_map? The only > thing gained that I can see is that the struct resource gains const > protection... > >> ...I think that encapsulation loss is worth it for the gain of clearly >> separating the HMM-case from the base case. > > Agreed. > Yeah, I forgot that dev_pagemap grew those fields, so we don't have any real encapsulation today. So this would just be a pure cleanup to kill struct page_map.
