From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: introduce put_user_page(), placeholder version To: Jan Kara , CC: Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , Christopher Lameter , Jason Gunthorpe , Dan Williams , Al Viro , , LKML , linux-rdma , References: <20180928053949.5381-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20180928053949.5381-4-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20181003162237.GH24030@quack2.suse.cz> From: John Hubbard Message-ID: <6178c173-ffbf-700b-f140-e4b184a5767e@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:23:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181003162237.GH24030@quack2.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US-large Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 10/3/18 9:22 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 27-09-18 22:39:48, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote: >> From: John Hubbard >> >> Introduces put_user_page(), which simply calls put_page(). >> This provides a way to update all get_user_pages*() callers, >> so that they call put_user_page(), instead of put_page(). >> >> Also adds release_user_pages(), a drop-in replacement for >> release_pages(). This is intended to be easily grep-able, >> for later performance improvements, since release_user_pages >> is not batched like release_pages() is, and is significantly >> slower. > > A small nit but can we maybe call this put_user_pages() for symmetry with > put_user_page()? I don't really care too much but it would look natural to > me. > Sure. It started out as "make it a drop-in replacement for release_pages()", but now it's not quite a drop-in replacement anymore. And in any case it's an opportunity to make the name more intuitive, so that seems like a good idea. If anyone hates put_user_pages() and wants to campaign relentlessly for release_pages*(), then now is the time! :) thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA