On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:54 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 05:44:32PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > > Instruction from Matthew Wilcox who is supervising the entire vm_fault_t > > > migration work :-) > > > > Hang on. That was for the initial vm_fault_t conversion in which each > > step was clearly an improvement. What you're looking at now is far > > from that. > > Ok. But my understanding was, the approach of vm_insert_range comes > into discussion as part of converting vm_insert_page into vmf_insert_page > which is still part of original vm_fault_t conversion discussion. No ? No. The initial part (converting all page fault methods to vm_fault_t) is done. What remains undone (looking at akpm's tree) is changing the typedef of vm_fault_t from int to unsigned int. That will prevent new page fault handlers with the wrong type from being added. I don't necessarily want to get rid of vm_insert_page(). Maybe it will make sense to do that, and maybe not. What I do want to see is thought, and not "Matthew told me to do it", when I didn't. _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
