On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 02:05:35PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Some cleanups around function names, comments and the config option of > "GUP-fast" -- GUP without "lock" safety belts on. > > With this cleanup it's easy to judge which functions are GUP-fast specific. > We now consistently call it "GUP-fast", avoiding mixing it with "fast GUP", > "lockless", or simply "gup" (which I always considered confusing in the > ode). > > So the magic now happens in functions that contain "gup_fast", whereby > gup_fast() is the entry point into that magic. Comments consistently > reference either "GUP-fast" or "gup_fast()". > > Based on mm-unstable from today. I won't CC arch maintainers, but only > arch mailing lists, to reduce noise. > > Tested on x86_64, cross compiled on a bunch of archs, whereby some of them > don't properly even compile on mm-unstable anymore in my usual setup > (alpha, arc, parisc64, sh) ... maybe the cross compilers are outdated, > but there are no new ones around. Hm. I'm not sure what config you tried there; as I am doing some build tests recently, I found turning off CONFIG_SAMPLES + CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS could avoid a lot of issues, I think it's due to libc missing. But maybe not the case there. The series makes sense to me, the naming is confusing. Btw, thanks for posting this as RFC. This definitely has a conflict with the other gup series that I had; I'll post v4 of that shortly. -- Peter Xu
