On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 4:19 PM Miguel Ojeda > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 1. Introduce the vmf_* API > > 2. Change all PF-users users to that (leaving all non-PF ones > > untouched!) -- if this is too big, you can split this patch into > > several patches, one per subsystem, etc. > > We are done with step 2. All the PF-users are converted to use > vmf_insert_page. ( Ref - linux-next-20181005) They are not supposed to be "steps". You did it with 70+ commits (!!) over the course of several months. Why a tree wasn't created, stuff developed there, and when done, submitted it for review? > > > > Otherwise, if you want to pursue Matthew's idea: > > > > 4. Introduce the vm_insert_range (possibly leveraging > > vm_insert_page, or not; you have to see what is best). > > 5. Replace those callers that can take advantage of vm_insert_range > > 6. Remove vm_insert_page and replace callers with vm_insert_range > > (only if it is not worth to keep vm_insert_range, again justifying it > > *on its own merits*) > > Step 4 to 6, going to do it. It is part of plan now :-) > Fine, but you haven't answered to the other parts of my email: you don't explain why you choose one alternative over the others, you simply keep changing the approach. Cheers, Miguel _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
