On 8/6/19 10:40 AM, Ira Weiny wrote:
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 02:40:40PM -0700, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Hubbard jhubbard@nvidia.com
Provide a more capable variation of put_user_pages_dirty_lock(), and delete put_user_pages_dirty(). This is based on the following:
- Lots of call sites become simpler if a bool is passed
into put_user_page*(), instead of making the call site choose which put_user_page*() variant to call.
- Christoph Hellwig's observation that set_page_dirty_lock()
is usually correct, and set_page_dirty() is usually a bug, or at least questionable, within a put_user_page*() calling chain.
This leads to the following API choices:
* put_user_pages_dirty_lock(page, npages, make_dirty) * There is no put_user_pages_dirty(). You have to hand code that, in the rare case that it's required.Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de Cc: Matthew Wilcox willy@infradead.org Cc: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz Cc: Ira Weiny ira.weiny@intel.com Cc: Jason Gunthorpe jgg@ziepe.ca Signed-off-by: John Hubbard jhubbard@nvidia.com
I assume this is superseded by the patch in the large series?
Actually, it's the other way around (there is a note that that effect in the admittedly wall-of-text cover letter [1] in the 34-patch series.
However, I'm trying hard to ensure that it doesn't actually matter:
* Patch 1 in the latest of each patch series, is identical
* I'm reposting the two series together.
...and yes, it might have been better to merge the two patchsets, but the smaller one is more reviewable. And as a result, Andrew has already merged it into the akpm tree.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190804224915.28669-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com
thanks,