Hi Souptick, On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 7:51 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 1:16 AM Miguel Ojeda > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Also, not sure if you saw my comments/review: if the interface is not > > going to change, why the name change? Why can't we simply keep using > > vm_insert_page? > > yes, changing the name without changing the interface is a > bad approach and this can't be taken. As Matthew mentioned, > "vm_insert_range() which takes an array of struct page pointers. > That fits the majority of remaining users" would be a better approach > to fit this use case. > > But yes, we can't keep vm_insert_page and vmf_insert_page together > as it doesn't guarantee that future drivers will not use vm_insert_page > in #PF context ( which will generate new errno to VM_FAULT_CODE). > Maybe I am hard of thinking, but aren't you planning to remove vm_insert_page with these changes? If yes, why you can't use the keep vm_insert_page name? In other words, keep returning what the drivers expect? Cheers, Miguel _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
